Bornstein v. R.H. White Co.
| Decision Date | 25 March 1927 |
| Citation | 259 Mass. 34,155 N.E. 661 |
| Parties | BORNSTEIN v. R. H. WHITE CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; R. F. Raymond, Judge.
Action of tort by Sarah Bornstein against the R. H. White Company to rocover for personal injuries from slipping on marble stairway in defendant's store. Finding for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions sustained. Judgment for defendant.
J. T. Cassidy, of Boston, for plaintiff.
C. M. Pratt, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort by one who was in a retail store to make a purchase, to recover compensation for injuries sustained by slipping upon a marble stairway. Her testimony was:
‘That as she started up the first step she saw a man about ten steps up with a mop; that he was mopping coming down the stairway; * * * that she proceeded up the stairway and noticed nothing before she fell; that she slipped on the fifth step; * * * that as she fell she noticed a wet spot on the surface of the fifth step, which was four or five or six inches across; * * * that she didn't notice any other step wet.’
The plaintiff also introduced evidence to the effect that porters were employed by the defendant to keep the store clean, for which they used brooms, brushes, mops, and dusters. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. There was nothing to show that the mop used by the defendant's servant was a wet mop and not a dry mop, and there was nothing to warrant an inference that the wet spot was caused by the defendant or had been upon the step any appreciable length of time. The case is governed by Zugbie v. J. R. Whipple Co., 230 Mass. 19, 119 N. E. 191,Sheehan v. Holland, 231 Mass. 246, 120 N. E. 591,Towne v. Waltham Watch Co., 247 Mass. 390, 141 N. E. 675,O'Brien v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 250 Mass. 192, 145 N. E. 259, and Mascary v. Boston Elevated Railway (Mass.) 155 N. E. 637.
Exceptions sustained.
Judgment for defendant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dudley v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
... ... 193; Filipowicz v. S. S. Kresge Co. (Mich ... 1937) 274 N.W. 721; Bronstein v. R. R. White Co., ... 259 Mass. 34, 155 N.E. 661; John Thompson Grocery Co. v ... Phillips (1912) 22 ... ...
-
Dooley v. Econ. Store, Inc.
...existed for such time that it was his duty to know it. Kaufman Department Stores v. Cranston (C.C. A.) 258 F. 917; Bornstein v. R. H. White Co., 259 Mass. 34, 155 N.E. 661, and cases cited; Toland v. Paine Furniture Store, 175 Mass. 476, 56 N.E. 608; Carleton v. Franconia I. & S. Co., 99 Ma......
-
Carrie Dooley v. Economy Store, Inc
... ... Kaufman Department Stores v. Cranston ... (C.C.A.), 258 F. 917; Bornstein v. R. H. White ... Co., 259 Mass. 34, 155 N.E. 661, and cases cited; ... Toland v. Paine ... ...
-
Batson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
...Olson v. Whitthorne, 203 Cal. 206, 263 P. 518, 58 A. L. R. 129; Walker v. Grand Stores, 137 A. 563, 5 N. J. Misc. 541; Bornstein v. White, 259 Mass. 34, 155 N. E. 661. Cf. Tack v. Ruffo, 263 Mass. 487, 161 N. E. 587. See Robinson v. Woolworth, 80 Mont. 431, 261 P. Recognizing, as we must, t......