Boday v. Thibault
| Decision Date | 04 April 1958 |
| Citation | 149 N.E.2d 136,337 Mass. 243 |
| Parties | Winifred D. BODAY et al. v. Clara THIBAULT et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John C. Collins, Waltham, for plaintiffs.
Joseph J. Walsh, Boston, for defendants.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN and CUTTER, JJ.
In this action of tort Mrs. Boday seeks to recover for personal injuries, and her husband seeks consequential damages, resulting from her falling on steps in front of a house owned by the defendants. The jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. The case is before us on the defendants' exceptions to the denial of their motions for directed verdicts. The facts, in their aspect most favorable to the plaintiffs, are set out below.
At the time of the injury in 1952, the plaintiffs occupied as tenants the middle apartment of three duplex apartments in a house on Pine Street, Waltham. Each apartment had a separate front door. The doors were side by side. In front of the door to the plaintiff's apartment and the door to the apartment to the left of it, as one faces the house from Pine Street, were a single piazza and three wide concrete steps, each extending the whole width of the two doors and a little further in each direction. There was no dividing fence or other demarcation indicating that any particular part of the steps belonged to either apartment. The steps were approached by a hardtop extension of the sidewalk. The portion of the porch in front of the plaintiffs' door and apartment was wholly screened in, whereas the portion in front of the apartment to the left was not screened. The plaintiffs alone used the screened in portion of the porch. The tenants of the apartment to the left and the plaintiffs in good weather sat out on the steps and on occasions used all parts of them for access to their respective apartments.
The accident occurred as Mrs. Boday was leaving her apartment with her two year old child and a real estate man to look at some real estate. 'She came out on the piazza and stepped down on the first top step * * * turned * * * and picked up her * * * boy * * * stepped down onto the second step' and then put one foot on the bottom step. Her other foot caught in a crack on the second step and she was thrown to the ground and injured.
In 1945 or 1946, when the plaintiffs hired the premises, the steps were in good condition. In the course of time Mrs. Boday noticed a crack growing in the tread of the second step, which gradually was chipped away and became uneven. One of the defendants was told about it a year before the accident but no repairs were made prior to the accident.
1. There was evidence that these steps were in fact used in common by the plaintiffs and the tenants of the neighboring apartment. There was no evidence of any specific arrangement with the defendants at the time of the letting about the use of the steps. Accordingly, whether the steps were a part of the premises let to the plaintiffs, or remained in the control of the defendants, was a question for the jury. Conroy v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mallard v. Waldman
...See Harris v. Gee, 328 Mass. 213, 215-216, 102 N.E.2d 779. Cf. McDonald v. Yogel, 329 Mass. 492, 494, 109 N.E.2d 136; Boday v. Thibault, 337 Mass. 243, 245, 149 N.E.2d 136; Merwin v. De Raptellis, 338 Mass. 118, 120-121, 153 N.E.2d 893, where there was evidence that the defect in fact cause......
-
Mirick v. Galligan
...This and further testimony is not compelling, but permits an inference of a permissive use of the common area. Boday v. Thibault, 337 Mass. 243, 245, 149 N.E.2d 136 (1958), and cases cited. See Finn v. Peters, 340 Mass. 622, 624--625, 165 N.E.2d 896 (1960); Annot., 68 A.L.R.3d 382 There was......
-
Finn v. Peters
...with respect to a part of the premises not shown to have been physically separate from an area used by others. See Boday v. Thivault, 337 Mass. 243, 245, 149 N.E.2d 136, and cases cited. A verdict for the defendant could not have been directed despite the circumstances indicating that in 19......
-
Whalen v. Zolper
...of her contributory negligence but does not require this Court to find as a matter of law a finding of such negligence. Boday v. Thibault, 337 Mass. 243, 149 N.E.2d 136; Annotation 26 A.L.R.2d 610, The defendants have not clearly demonstrated from the record that they are entitled to judgme......