Anjou v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1911 |
| Citation | 94 N.E. 386,208 Mass. 273 |
| Parties | ANJOU v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. J. Cummings and H. J. Dixon, for plaintiff.
John E Hannigan, for defendant.
The plaintiff arrived on one of defendant's cars on the upper level of the Dudley Street terminal; other passengers arrived on same car, but it does not appear how many. She waited until the crowd had left the platform, when she inquired of one of defendant's uniformed employés the direction to another car. He walked along a narrow platform, and she following a few feet behind him toward the stairway he had indicated, was injured by slipping upon a banana peel. It was described by several who examined it in these terms: It 'felt dry, gritty, as if there were dirt upon it,' as if 'trampled over a good deal,' as 'flattened down, and black in color,' 'every bit of it was black, there wasn't a particle of yellow,' and as 'black, flattened out and gritty.' It was one of the duties of employés of the defendant, of whom there was one at this station all the time, to observe and remove whatever was upon the platform to interfere with the safety of travelers. These might have been found to be the facts.
The inference might have been drawn from the appearance and condition of the banana peel that it had been upon the platform a considerable period of time, in such position that it would have been seen and removed by the employés of the defendant if they had been reasonably careful in performing their duty. Therefore there is something on which to base a conclusion that it was not dropped a moment before by a passenger, and Goddard v. Boston & Maine R. R., 179 Mass. 52, 60 N.E. 486, and Lyons v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 204 Mass. 227, 90 N.E. 419, are plainly distinguishable. The obligation rested upon the defendant to keep its station reasonably safe for its passengers. It might have been found that the platform was suffered to remain in such condition as to be a menace to those rightfully walking upon it. Hence there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, which should have been submitted to the jury. MacLaren v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 197 Mass. 490, 83 N.E. 1088; Foster v. Old Colony St. Rly Co., 182 Mass. 378, 65 N.E. 795; Rosen v. Boston, 187 Mass. 245, 72 N.E. 992, 68 L. R. A. 153; Kingston v. Boston Elevated Rly. Co., 93 N.E. 573.
In accordance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.
...placed on the physical characteristics of the substance to determine how long it had been left on the floor. See Anjou v. Boston Elevated Ry., 208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386 (1911). In Oliveri v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., supra at 170-171, 292 N.E.2d 863, for example, even though the pla......
-
Another v. Target Corp. & Another
...a duty to keep the property reasonably safe for lawful visitors regardless of the source of the danger. See Anjou v. Boston Elevated Ry., 208 Mass. 273, 274, 94 N.E. 386 (1911). See Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., 448 Mass. 780, 791-792, 863 N.E.2d 1276 (2007). The rationale has ......
-
Lance v. Van Winkle
... ... S.W.2d 771; Haverkost v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 193 ... S.W.2d 357; Anjou v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 208 ... Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386; Hudson v. F.W. Woolworth ... Co., 275 ... ...
-
S. H. Kress & Co. v. Selph, 4738
...R.I. 165, 131 A. 194; Scott v. Kline's, Mo.App., 284 S.W. 831; S. S. Kresge Co. v. Rankin, 4 Cir., 149 F.2d 934; Anjou v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386; Hudson v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 275 Mass. 469, 176 N.E. 188; Fournier v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 286 Mass. 7,......