Spellman v. Chicopee
| Decision Date | 22 October 1881 |
| Parties | Catherine E. Spellman v. Inhabitants of Chicopee |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Hampden. Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in a sidewalk of a street in the defendant town. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Allen, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:
The evidence showed that the plaintiff was coming out of a store on November 24, 1880, and stepped upon ice upon the sidewalk and fell; that upon a portion of the sidewalk was a depression, about an inch in depth at the deepest part and running out to a level with the rest of the walk in a distance of four feet in length and three feet in width; that water collected in this depression, and froze there, and remained while the rest of the walk was clear. The judge found that the ice was smooth and did not of itself constitute a defect, but that the depression naturally collecting the water, and causing the ice to remain in it did constitute a defect.
On December 6, 1880, the plaintiff gave the following notice in writing to the cown: "Respectfully represents Catherine E. Spellman, wife of Melden W. Spellman, both of said Chicopee, residing in a tenement No. 36 Perkins Street, that on the 24th day of November, A. D. 1880, about five o'clock in the afternoon, while she was walking on the southerly side of Exchange Street, near the store occupied by H. Coggswell as a stove store, she was injured; that the causes of her injury and the circumstances are as follows She had just left the said store and stepped on the sidewalk that the walk was out of repair, and was coated with ice in front of the store, and was very slippery and unsafe, by reason of which she fell; that the injuries consist of a sprained and bruised foot, ankle and leg, and internal injuries, and injuries to her head, wherefore she claims of the said inhabitants compensation in damages.
"Catherine E. Spellman,
By H. W. Ely, her Attorney."
The defendant asked the judge to rule that the notice was not sufficient, and did not set forth or give notice of any defect in the way for which the town was liable; that it contained no sufficient notice that the depression was a defect. The judge ruled that the notice was sufficient, and found for the plaintiff.
If the ruling was correct, judgment was to be entered on the verdict; otherwise, a new trial to be ordered....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hackenyos v. City of St. Louis
...cause of the injury as a defect. Savoy v. Haverhill, 132 Mass. 324. And it should not be construed with technical strictness. Spellman v. Chicopee, 131 Mass. 443. We are of the opinion that the notice in this case called the attention of the city with sufficient distinctness to the cause re......
-
Pearson v. Boise City
...from a nearby improperly drained gutter, was held defective, and thereby responsible for a dangerous icy condition; Spellman v. Inhabitants of Chicopee, 1881, 131 Mass. 443, wherein was held defective a walk having a depression in which water collected, forming ice when the rest of the walk......
-
Fortin v. Inhabitants of Easthampton
...to the claim for damages, in order that they might make the necessary investigation to ascertain the liability of the town. Spellman v. Chicopee, 131 Mass. 443;Savory v. Haverhill, 132 Mass. 324; Bailey v. Everett, Id. 441; Lowe v. Clinton, 133 Mass. 526;Welch v. Gardner, Id. 529; Dalton v.......
-
Chamberlain v. City of Oshkosh
...43; Kinney v. City of Troy, 108 N. Y. 567, 15 N. E. Rep. 728; Kenney v. City of Cohoes, (N. Y. App.) 3 N. E. Rep. 189; Spellman v. Inhabitants of Chicopee, 131 Mass. 443;Keith v. City of Brockton, 136 Mass. 119; Cloughessey v. City of Waterbury, 51 Conn. 405; Congdon v. City of Norwich, 37 ......