Blessington v. City of Boston

Decision Date04 March 1891
PartiesBLESSINGTON v. CITY OF BOSTON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

I.R. Clark and F. Ranney, for plaintiff.

T.M Babson, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

The only exception now insisted on by the defendant is the exception to the refusal of the court below to give the following instruction, and to the instruction actually given upon this point: "If the city had exercised reasonable care and diligence to guard the hole and prevent the accident or injury, it would not be responsible for the momentary negligence of the employes of the railway company." The court instructed the jury, among other things not objected to, as follows: "It is a question purely of fact for you [[the jury] whether such barriers or safeguards existed in this case as were reasonably required. *** The city must either by lights, bars, or boards, or in some other way provide a reasonable safeguard. In ordinary cases, the city would not be liable if these barriers or safeguards were removed by others, but in this case it is competent for the jury to consider the fact that it was known cars would pass the barrier in question, and that it would frequently have to be removed in order that the cars might pass over the track and it is for the jury to say, under all the circumstances of the case, whether this barrier was sufficient, whether this was all the city should have done, or whether other precautions, such as planking over the hole, stationing officers or servants there to warn people, should have been adopted. *** If the city trusted to the agents of this company to properly guard the hole, the city is liable for their negligence, because it intrusted to them a duty which belonged to it. *** If these agents are negligent, it must take the consequences of it. *** Did the city do what was reasonably incumbent upon it to do for the safety of travelers, taking into view what the city knew or ought to have known in relation to the use of the railway, and the necessity of frequently removing the barriers, and as to the manner in which they might be removed or naturally would be removed?" We think the instructions thus given stated the law accurately, and with sufficient fullness. The city knew of the existence of the trench, and of its depth and extent. It knew also that the barriers would of necessity require to be frequently removed to accommodate passing cars,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Yazoo City v. Loggins
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1926
    ...kept up, it will be liable for the consequences of their negligence, although the barriers are down but temporarily. Blessington v. Boston, 153 Mass. 409, 26 N.E. 1113; Prentiss v. Boston, 112 Mass. 43; Boston Coon, 175 Mass. 283, 56 N.E. 287; Pace v. Webster City (Iowa), 138 Iowa 107, 115 ......
  • Stoliker v. City of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1910
    ... ... 310, 74 N.E. 465; [90 N.E. 931] ... Butman v. Newton, 179 Mass. 1, 60 N.E. 401, 88 Am ... St. Rep. 349. And if the city chose to intrust that duty to ... Kiley or the Cahill Company, it became liable for their ... [204 Mass. 538] ... as it would have been for its own. Blessington v ... Boston, 153 Mass. 409, 26 N.E. 1113; Brooks v ... Somerville, 106 Mass. 271. Whether this duty had been ... complied with was under the circumstances a question for the ... jury. See the cases cited above ...          In ... MacFarlane v. Boston Elevated Railway, 194 Mass ... ...
  • Stoliker v. City of Boston
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1910
    ...that duty to Kiley or the Cahill Company, it became liable for their failure, as it would have been for its own. Blessington v. Boston, 153 Mass. 409, 26 N. E. 1113;Brooks v. Somerville, 106 Mass. 271. Whether this duty had been complied with was under the circumstances a question for the j......
  • Nugent v. Boston Consol. Gas Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 19, 1921
    ...is responsible. Woodman v. Metropolitan Railroad, 149 Mass. 335, 340, 21 N. E. 482,4 L. R. A. 213, 14 Am. St. Rep. 427;Blessington v. Boston, 153 Mass. 409, 26 N. E. 1113;Pye v. Faxon, 156 Mass. 471, 474, 31 N. E. 640;Flynn v. Butler, 189 Mass. 377, 388, 75 N. E. 730;Boucher v. New York, Ne......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT