Bennett v. Jordan Marsh Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1914 |
| Parties | BENNETT v. JORDAN MARSH CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
J. C. Johnston, of Boston, for plaintiff.
John Lowell and James A. Lowell, both of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries caused by the plaintiff's falling on a stairway in the defendant's store by reason of the alleged defective condition of the stairway. The presiding judge, after a disagreement of the jury, ordered a verdict for the defendant; this was equivalent to a ruling that as matter of law upon the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff she was not entitled to recover. The case is here on plaintiff's exceptions.
The plaintiff, who had been in the employ of the defendant until two days before the accident, went to the store to make some purchases and to receive the wages due her. After receiving her pay on the fifth floor, she descended by the stairway to the fourth floor. When there she decided to walk from that floor, down the stairway, to the first floor and there make the purchases, but after having passed from the fourth to the third floor in safety, and while descending from the third to the second floor, she claimed that she slipped on a tread of the stairs and fell, causing the injuries complained of.
It is not contended that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care.
The plaintiff being upon the defendant's premises by its implied invitation, it owed her the duty of furnishing reasonably safe stairways over which she might pass while in the store. Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass 578, 25 N.E. 22.
The more difficult question to be decided is whether there was any evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the defendant negligently maintained the stairway at the place where the plaintiff was injured. We are of opinion that there was.
The evidence tended to show that the stairway was of iron construction, with treads twelve or fourteen inches broad which originally had a corrugated surface for a space of about one inch or an inch and a half in width, extending back from the edge of the tread. Behind the corrugated portion the tread was countersunk and rubber sheeting set in so as to be flush with the step on the edge. It appeared that the outer edge, where the plaintiff fell, had been worn down, so that the treads presented a smooth, shiny, and very slippery surface, rounded off, by wear at the edge, and that this condition was more noticeable in the middle of the stairs than at the ends, while the corrugations had been worn down so that they could be observed or detected only with difficulty.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohn v. Hudson & M. R. Co.
...Hillis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 284 Mass. 320, 187 N.E. 558 (Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass.1933); Bennett v. Jordan Marsh Co., 216 Mass. 550, 104 N.E. 479 (Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass.1914); Rosenthal v. Central Garage of Lynn, Inc., 279 Mass. 574, 181 N.E. 660 (Sup.Jud.Ct.Mass.1932); and White v. Mugar, 280 Mass. 7......
-
Pastrick v. S.S. Kresge Co.
...of which could be found to be negligent. Here there was nothing out of order, and no such wear as there was in Bennett v. Jordan Marsh Co., 216 Mass. 550, 104 N. E. 479,Solomon v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 276 Mass. 139, 176 N. E. 810,Hillis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 284 Mass. 320, 187 N.......
-
Pastrick v. S. S. Kresge Co.
... ... negligent. Here there was nothing out of order, and no such ... wear as there was in Bennett v. Jordan Marsh Co. 216 ... Mass. 550 , Solomon v. Boston Elevated Railway, 276 ... Mass. 139, ... ...
-
Lynch v. First Nat. Bank of Boston
...See Cromarty v. Boston, 127 Mass. 329, 331, 332,34 Am.Rep. 381;Moynihan v. Holyoke, 193 Mass. 26, 28, 78 N.E. 742;Bennett v. Jordan Marsh Co. 216 Mass. 550, 552, 104 N.E. 479;Kelleher v. Newburyport, 227 Mass. 462, 464, 116 N.E. 806, L.R.A.1917F, 710;Mulloy v. Kay Jewelry Co., 289 Mass. 264......