Bickford v. Richards
| Decision Date | 26 June 1891 |
| Citation | 154 Mass. 163,27 N.E. 1014 |
| Parties | BICKFORD v. RICHARDS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
George
A. Perkins, for plaintiff.
J.H. & H.W.B. Cotton, for defendants.
It is immaterial whether the defendants are to be regarded as the servants and agents of the plaintiff, or as contractors under Powers, which the defendants claim was the case. In either instance they owed to the plaintiff the duty of not injuring his property by their negligent or wrongful acts. If they were the plaintiff's servants, and their negligent actions caused injury to his building, they would be liable to him for the damage. 4 Bac.Abr. § 589; Smith Mast. & S., § 134, and cases cited; White v. Inhabitants of Phillipston, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 108; Walcott v Swampscott, 1 Allen, 101. If they were contractors in possession of the building under Powers, or were his servants, it was also their duty not to injure the plaintiff's property by their negligent acts. Whether servants or contractors, they were liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff's property by their tortious acts or misfeasance. Hewett v. Swift, 3 Allen, 420; Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. 343. The plaintiff's right of action does not depend on the existence of a contract between himself and the defendants, as would be the case if he were suing for damages resulting from some non-feasance on their part, but on the fact that they have wrongfully and negligently done, or caused to be done something to his property which has injured it. The gist of the action is the breach by the defendants of the duty which they owed to the plaintiff not to injure his property by any wrongful or negligent acts of theirs. That duty did not depend on or grow out of contract. Bretherton v. Wood, 3 Brod. & B. 54; Smith v. Seward, 3 Pa.St. 342; Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld.Raym. 909. It may be that Powers is liable to the plaintiff for a breach of the contract caused by the acts of the defendants, and that they may also be liable to Powers for a breach of their contract with him; but that does not relieve the defendants from liability to the plaintiff for the damage to his property resulting from their negligent and wrongful acts. Stock v. Boston, 149 Mass. 414, 21 N.E. 871. Nor does it follow, as claimed by the defendants, that because the plaintiff may not be liable for the acts of the defendants as their master or otherwise, that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakube v. Cohen
...299, 18 Am.Rep. 485;Fitch v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 150 Mo.App. 149, 130 S.W. 44 (telegraph company); Bickford v. Richards, 154 Mass. 163, 27 N.E. 1014,26 Am.St.Rep. 224 ...
-
Alderman v. Noble
... ... principal. Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants' Bank, 6 ... Metc. 13; Gould v. Rich, 7 Metc. 538; White ... v. Phillipston, 10 Metc. 108, 111; Bickford v ... Richards, 154 Mass. 163, 27 N.E. 1014,26 Am.St.Rep. 224; ... Gordon v. Cross & Roberts, Inc., 287 Mass. 362, 191 ... N.E. 407; Zulkee v ... ...
-
E. H. Emery & Co. v. Am. Refrigerator Transit Co. (Chicago, B.
...negligence he is responsible, not merely to his employer, but to persons injured by reason of his acts.” In Bickford v. Richards, 154 Mass. 163, 27 N. E. 1014, 26 Am. St. Rep. 224, the parties negligently injured buildings in removing them, and were held liable, the court saying: “Whether s......
-
E.H. Emery & Co. v. American Refrigerator Transit Co.
...said: "For negligence, he is responsible, not merely to his employer, but to persons injured by reason of his acts." In Bickford v. Richards, 154 Mass. 163, 27 N.E. 1014, the parties negligently injured buildings in removing and were held liable, the court saying: "Whether servants or contr......