Watkins v. Goodall
| Decision Date | 27 February 1885 |
| Citation | 138 Mass. 533 |
| Parties | Christina Watkins v. F. P. Goodall |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by falling upon ice accumulated on an uncovered piazza and steps belonging to the defendant. Trial in the Superior Court before Pitman, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:
The defendant admitted that he was the owner of a certain block of five tenements in Holyoke, two stories in height, all occupied, and one of which was, at the time of the accident January 13, 1883, and had been for about three years previously, occupied by the plaintiff, with her husband and family, as tenants at will of the defendant, paying rent monthly therefor; that there was a common uncovered stoop or back piazza, extending past the rear of said block, and annexed thereto, to Center Street, and back entrances connected with said piazza from each tenement. Two wooden steps at the end of the piazza led down to Center Street. The block was situated on the corner of Ely Street and Center Street, and a front passageway, down steps which were protected by a portico, connected each tenement with Ely Street. A rail was placed on the outer edge of the back piazza, extending as far as the stairs, and from thence to the street a picket fence extended. Three spouts conducted the water from the eaves at the back of the building, passing down to the sewer from the centre and at each end of the block, the conductor near Center Street being attached to the brick wall of the building and passing under the piazza close to the building. The defendant admitted that the back piazza and passageway to Center Street were for the use of all the tenants in common who might occupy said block.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that, on the morning of January 13, 1883, while passing across the back piazza to Center Street for yeast, she slipped and fell upon a ridge of ice which had accumulated near the spout, and was thrown or slipped down the stairs, where ice had also accumulated. The plaintiff testified that she knew ice had accumulated near the conductor, and that it had been there for several days previously to the accident; that the ice was caused by the water from the conductor, which ran out on to the platform, because of a broken place in the pipe, which was in plain view from the piazza; that at that time the ridge of ice was on the piazza and also on the steps, but the steps were not all covered with ice; that during the night it had snowed, and covered the ice; that, when she heard the bell of the yeast-man, she took a cup and a broom and started out of the back door for Center Street; that, while she was going along on the piazza, she struck this ridge of ice and fell; that, as she was going along, she was pushing the snow in front of her with one hand upon her broom and the other holding her cup; that, as she was going along, she looked towards the yeast-man; that she "had not presence of mind to be thinking about ice," but "was thinking about yeast."
The plaintiff also introduced evidence tending to show that it was only in cold weather that any annoyance was caused, and that the water causing the ridge of ice came from a broken con ductor, which the plaintiff testified was broken off two or two and a half feet above the piazza floor; that no piece was gone, but it was shoved to one side; that the break was in plain sight; that the defendant often passed by it; and that it had existed nearly a year. The plaintiff's husband testified that the break was caused by the bursting of the conductor, and that a crack in the pipe extended in the direction of the pipe; that an accumulation of ice in the conductor caused the water to flow out when a thaw came, and run out on to the piazza, and was there freezing and thawing according to the changes in the weather. The plaintiff and her witnesses all testified that they had not made any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Another v. Target Corp. & Another
...landlord also included a duty not to wantonly or negligently place a dangerous obstruction in the common area. See Watkins v. Goodall, 138 Mass. 533, 536 (1885). As to the latter duty, the court explained:“[The landlord] is liable for obstructions negligently caused by him, but not for not ......
-
Goreham v. Martins
...wantonly or negligently placing a dangerous obstruction in a common area. Papadopoulos, supra at 371, 930 N.E.2d 142. See Watkins v. Goodall, 138 Mass. 533, 536 (1885). Snow and ice were regarded as potentially dangerous obstructions, but a landlord was not liable for injuries sustained by ......
-
Durkin v. Lewitz
...followed the Massachusetts rule. Even in those cases which follow the Massachusetts rule, certain exceptions are made. In Watkins v. Goodall, 1885, 138 Mass. 533, it was held that where water was artificially discharged upon a platform, so as to make it dangerous when frozen, the lessor was......
-
Papadopoulos v. Target Corp.
...of the landlord also included a duty not to wantonly or negligently place a dangerous obstruction in the common area. See Watkins v. Goodall, 138 Mass. 533, 536 (1885). As to the latter duty, the court explained:[The landlord] is liable for obstructions negligently caused by him, but not fo......