Baker v. Tibbetts

• Decision Date: 01 January 1895
• Citation: 39 N.E. 350,162 Mass. 468
• Parties: BAKER v. TIBBETTS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

162 Mass. 468

39 N.E. 350

BAKER v. TIBBETTS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

January 1, 1895

COUNSEL

Webster Thayer and Hollis W. Cobb, for plaintiff.

Marshall Burke & Marshall, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES, J.

This is an action of tort for personal injuries, seeking to charge the defendant on the ground that by his agent he invited the plaintiff into a place of hidden danger,--that is to say, a place where there was a dangerous explosive, unknown to the plaintiff,--and thereby led him into a trap. The place in question was the basement of a building which had been conveyed by one Aldrich to the defendant, as trustee for Aldrich's creditors. The defendant, by his agent Stearns, had made a written lease of the building to Sherman and Sherman had made an agreement for a sublease of the basement to Ryan, to take effect on October 1, 1892. In this basement were engines, boilers in a cement-lined pit, and so forth, and in the boilers was some bisulphide of carbon, the explosive mentioned above. At the time of the lease to Sherman, Stearns agreed to remove everything in the basement except a Fitchburg engine and large shaft, and retained a key to the basement. Later, Stearns asked that certain things might remain there. Sherman assented if Ryan did not object. There was evidence that on September 19th Ryan and the plaintiff, who was interested in Ryan's business, went to Stearns, just outside the basement, and asked him what things he wanted to have remain, and that Stearns answered, "Come in, and I will show you." Before this time Stearns had removed some of the things, and had drawn off some of the bi-sulphide of carbon, but in the process some of it had been spilled upon the bottom of the pit. The parties went into the basement, and an explosion happened. According to the plaintiff's testimony, it was caused by his accidentally knocking a piece of iron into the pit and making a spark. The plaintiff and Ryan denied that they had been told by any one of the presence of the explosive. On the other hand, there seems to be no reasonable doubt that Sherman knew as much as Stearns did.

Assuming that to leave any of the bisulphide of carbon in the pit was negligent in the only sense in which it could be so as towards the plaintiff,--that is to say, that it was conduct manifestly endangering the safety of those on the premises without warning,--still, if Sherman, the person having sole control of the premises, knew the precise condition of things, and appreciated the danger, the defendant would not necessarily be answerable to persons whom Sherman might see fit to invite there. Mellen v. Morrill, 126 Mass. 545; Clifford v. Mills, 146 Mass. 47, 15 N.E. 84. The ground on which the defendant must be held, if at all, in this case is that he invited and induced the plaintiff to enter the place, known to the defendant to be dangerous, without warning the plaintiff.

The defendant puts some reliance on the fact that by an earlier recorded deed Aldrich had conveyed the premises to a third person, and it is suggested that the boilers and bisulphide of carbon had been left on the premises by a former tenant and never had belonged to Aldrich. These facts, if true, are not a defense by...