Adams v. Town of Chicopee
| Decision Date | 19 October 1888 |
| Citation | 18 N.E. 231,147 Mass. 440 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. TOWN OF CHICOPEE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
G.D. Robinson, for plaintiff.
G.M Stearns and W.W. McClench, for defendant.
At the trial of this case there was evidence tending to show that the concrete walk upon which the plaintiff fell was of such construction, or was in such condition, as to retain water in a hollow or basin upon it, and so, in freezing weather, to cause the formation of smooth, slippery ice. Upon this part of the case the jury were instructed that "the freezing of smooth, level ice does not constitute a defect in any way and the fact that there are such hollows or basins in the sidewalk as to make them fill with level water which cannot pass off, and that level water freezes, if it freezes, into smooth, level ice, does not constitute a defect in the way." Also that if they found "that there was such a formation of this sidewalk as to produce merely, in the natural and ordinary operation of things, smooth, level ice then that formation would not be a defect." "The plaintiff's counsel excepted to so much of the charge as related to smooth, level, and slippery ice not being a defect, under the conditions named in the charge."
It is strenuously argued for the defendant that the exception was too general, and that it is not open to the plaintiff to call in question these instructions. There may be cases in which an exception taken in this form would not sufficiently indicate to the presiding judge the particular parts of his charge which were objected to, nor give him the opportunity which he ought to have to correct an error, if, upon his attention being called to it, he found that he had made one. But in this case we are of opinion that the statements of legal propositions, which were intended to be excepted to, were well understood by the presiding judge and the defendant's counsel. The exceptions show that the plaintiff's counsel contended, in his argument to the jury, that the town would be liable for an accident happening upon smooth, slippery ice, formed under the conditions afterwards referred to in the quoted parts of the charge. The substance of the plaintiff's contention was stated in the instructions; and the plaintiff's counsel, in reply to a question by the judge during the charge, asserted his claim in the same terms as before.
The question of law involved in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wesley v. City of Detroit
... ... snow and ice] is not a defect which renders the town or city ... liable; but if the walk is in other respects unskillfully or ... improperly built, so ... N.W. 182; City of Atchison v. King, 9 Kan. 559; ... Pinkham v. Topsfield, 104 Mass. 78; Adams v ... Chicopee, 147 Mass. 440, 18 N.E. 231; Hampson v ... Taylor, 15 R.I. 85, 8 A. 331, and 23 ... ...
-
Huston v. City of Council Bluffs
...90 Iowa 33; Stanton v. Springfield, 94 Mass. 566; Pinkham v. Topsfield, 104 Mass. 78; Fitzgerald v. Woburn, 109 Mass. 204. Adams v. Chicopee, 117 Mass. 440; Hughes v. Lawrence, 160 Mass. 474; Decker Scranton City, 115 Pa. 241. Where there was a ridge of snow and ice on the sidewalk, which h......
-
Hughes v. City of Lawrence
...rendered unsafe and dangerous, though the ice was smooth and slippery, and not uneven, or accumulated in ridges, ( Adams v. Chicopee, 147 Mass. 440, 18 N.E. 231; Spellman v. Chicopee, 131 Mass. 443; v. Woburn, 109 Mass. 205; Pinkham v. Topsfield, 104 Mass. 78; Stanton v. Springfield, supra.......
-
Rochefort v. Town of Attleborough
...warning, thus making it dangerous to pass over it at all. McGaffigan v. City of Boston, 149 Mass. 289, 21 N.E.Rep. 371; Adams v. Chicopee, 147 Mass. 440, 18 N.E.Rep. 231; Hanscom v. Boston, 141 Mass. 242, 5 N.E.Rep. 249; Post v. Boston, 141 Mass. 189, 4 N.E.Rep. 815. In the opinion of a maj......