Beakey v. Town of Billerica
| Citation | 85 N.E.2d 620,324 Mass. 290 |
| Parties | BEAKEY v. TOWN OF BILLERICA. NIEDJWESKI v. TOWN OF BILLERICA. ROLFE v. TOWN OF BILLERICA. DAWSON v. TOWN OF BILLERICA. |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1949 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Joseph E. Warner, Judge.
Action of tort for personal injuries by Andrew F. L. Beakey, by Joseph Niedjweski, by William H. Rolfe, and by William J. Dawson against the Town of Billerica. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiffs bring exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Before QUA, C. J., and LUMMUS, RONAN, SPALDING, and WILLIAMS, JJ.
F. C. Zacharer, N. C. Contakos and C. DeMallie, all of Lowell, with him, for plaintiffs.
P. H. Ready, Town Counsel, of Lowell, for defendant.
These are actions of tort for personal injuries, brought by four persons who attended an auction sale at the town infirmary in Billerica. Cities and towns have a duty to support the poor and needy. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 117, § 1. By G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 47, § 1, ‘Any town may erect or provide and maintain an infirmary for persons in need,’ and by § 9, ‘An infirmary may be discontinued or appropriated to any other use if the towns interested so determine.’ An inmate of an infirmary may be required to work. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 117, §§ 21, 22. City of Marlborough v. City of Lowell, 298 Mass. 271, 10 N.E.2d 104;Chaffee v. Inhabitants of Town of Oxford, 308 Mass. 520, 524, 33 N.E.2d 298, 134 A.L.R. 756.
The material facts do not appear to be in dispute. The town had long maintained the infirmary until, on February 24, 1945, the town voted to dispose of it, and the disposal was left to the ‘proper town officers,’ who, it is agreed, were the selectmen. The advent of old age assistance (G.L.[Ter.Ed.] c. 118A) doubtless made the infirmary less necessary than it had been. The infirmary consisted of a large building of eighteen rooms, used for living quarters, a barn with a long shed attached to it, a hen house, and farm land of about one hundred ten acres. On April 7, 1945, the infirmary had five male inmates, in addition to the superintendent and the matron. There were seventeen cows, two horses and either one or two pigs. The farm produced hay and vegetables, and pigs for slaughter, all of which were consummed at the infirmary.
On April 7, 1945, an auction sale was held at the infirmary, to carry out the vote of the town of February 24, 1945. The sale proceeded until the real estate and all the personalty had been sold except the pigs and the hay. The auctioneer asked the persons attending the sale to step into the barn, as he intended to sell the pigs and the hay. When about one hundred fifty people were in the barn, the floor gave way and fell, and the four plaintiffs were hurt. There was evidence tending to show negligence on the part of town officers in letting the supports of the floor become water-soaked and rotten.
At the end of the evidence, the judge directed verdicts for the defendant, subject to the exceptions of the plaintiffs.
Upon the foregoing facts, the question arises whether the town is liable for negligence. It is immaterial that the maintenance of an infirmary is not a duty imposed upon a town by legislative mandate, but is permissive. In either case it would be the exercise of a governmental function. Tindley v. City of Salem, 137 Mass. 171, 176,50 Am.Rep. 289;Bolster v. City of Lawrence, 225 Mass. 387, 389, 114 N.E. 722, L.R.A.1917B, 1285;Baumgardner v. City of Boston, 304 Mass. 100, 107, 23 N.E.2d 121. ‘A municipality, in the absence of special statute imposing liability, is not liable for negligent acts of its officers or employees in the performance of strictly public functions imposed or...
To continue reading
Request your trial