Bleistine v. City of Chelsea

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: BRALEY, J.
• Citation: Bleistine v. City of Chelsea, 204 Mass. 105, 90 N.E. 526 (Mass. 1910)
• Decision Date: 07 January 1910
• Parties: BLEISTINE v. CITY OF CHELSEA.

204 Mass. 105

90 N.E. 526

BLEISTINE v. CITY OF CHELSEA.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 7, 1910

Jan. 7 1910.

COUNSEL

Keating & Brackett for plaintiff.

Samuel R. Cutler and Harry W. James, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY J.

If the street the defendant was required to keep in a reasonably safe condition for the use of travelers had become defective and dangerous, by the decayed condition of the wooden box sewer, which was located about two feet below the surface, the city would be liable to the plaintiff, whose due care is not questioned, if by the exercise of reasonable diligence it should have known of the defect. In the exercise of reasonable diligence, for want of which the liability of cities and towns is made to depend under Rev. Laws, c. 51, §§ 1, 18, where it appears that natural causes are known, or from information ought to be recognized as in operation from the method of construction, and which probably will render the way unsafe, the duty devolves upon the municipality to take every suitable precaution to guard against the danger. Olson v. Worcester, 142 Mass. 536, 537, 8 N.E. 441; Fleming v. Springfield, 154 Mass. 520, 28 N.E. 910, 26 Am. St. Rep. 268; Campbell v. Boston, 189 Mass. 7, 75 N.E. 96. If, however, where neither from the method of original construction, nor the length of time during which a public way has been in use, there are no superficial indications of any defect, or any reasonable ground to apprehend that, through structural changes beneath the surface due to the subsidence of culverts, bridges, drains, or sewers, which may have become out of repair, the roadbed may suddenly give way, causing injuries to travelers, the duty of reasonable supervision is not as matter of law shown to have been neglected, and the city or town is not legally chargeable with notice of concealed conditions which may render the way unsafe. Miller v. North Adams, 182 Mass. 569, 66 N.E. 197; Comerford v. Boston, 187 Mass. 564, 567, 73 N.E. 661; Campbell v. Boston, 189 Mass. 7, 10, 11, 75 N.E. 96, and cases cited. See Young v. Snell, 200 Mass. 242, 245, 86 N.E. 282, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242.

The notice having designated a particular place where the break occurred, the defendant excepted to the admission of evidence of the foreman of the gas company that, having been notified of a break in the surface from the collapse of the sewer at a point about 15 feet distant,...