O'Brien v. Freeman
| Decision Date | 06 December 1937 |
| Citation | 11 N.E.2d 582,299 Mass. 20 |
| Parties | JULIA O'BRIEN v. FRED H. FREEMAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
November 10, 1937.
Present: FIELD LUMMUS, QUA, DOLAN, & COX, JJ.
Negligence Amusement device, Invited person, Assumption of risk Contractual limitation of liability. Agency, Scope of employment.
Evidence warranted a finding of negligence of an attendant at a roller skating rink who, while skating backwards, bumped into a patron and caused him to fall.
The proprietor of a roller skating rink might be found responsible for negligence of his floor attendant who bumped into a patron, even if the attendant was disobeying specific instructions.
It was a question for the jury on the evidence whether notice by the proprietor of a roller skating rink, that patrons would use it at their own risk, had been brought home to a patron, by posted signs and by statements printed on his ticket, so as to limit the invitation extended to him.
TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated October 14, 1932. The action was tried before O'Connell, J. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,500. The defendant alleged exceptions.
The case was submitted on briefs.
L. Aronson & H.
Pavan, for the defendant.
T. B. Shea & F.
D. Harrigan, for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has a verdict against the defendant in an action of tort for the alleged negligence of one of the defendant's employees. The only exception presented is that of the defendant to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict.
The jury could have found that the plaintiff was injured in the defendant's roller skating rink to which she had been admitted by a ticket which she purchased; that as she was skating, the guard or attendant, skating backwards in the same direction in which the plaintiff was going, overtook and passed another skater, who was about five feet behind the plaintiff, and bumped into the plaintiff causing her to fall; that the instructions of the defendant to the guards were to skate at one half to one third of the speed of the skaters and in skating backwards to face the patrons, and in general to regulate the speed of the patrons; that on the face of the plaintiff's admission ticket appeared: ; that on the reverse side of the ticket appeared: ; that the plaintiff noticed signs in the place that said "skaters, something about their own risk"; that she did not see the ticket or bother to read it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gleason v. Mann
...this subject was never discussed between them. White-acre v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 241 Mass. 163, 134 N.E. 640;O'Brien v. Freeman, 299 Mass. 20, 11 N.E.2d 582;Baker v. Hemingway Brothers Interstate Trucking Co., 299 Mass. 76, 12 N.E.2d 95;Karjavainean v. Macfadden Publications, Inc.,......
-
Gleason v. Mann
... ... discussed between them. Whiteacre v. Boston Elevated ... Railway, 241 Mass. 163. O'Brien v. Freeman, ... 299 Mass. 20 ... Baker v. Hemingway Brothers Interstate ... Trucking Co. 299 Mass. 76 ... Karjavainean v ... Macfadden Publications, Inc. 305 ... ...
-
Barron v. McLellan Stores Co.
...invitees. Invitation, however, is important only as establishing the rights of the plaintiffs to be where they were. See O'Brien v. Freeman, 299 Mass. 20, 11 N.E.2d 582. It is assumed from the findings that that part of the defendant's premises where the plaintiffs were when they were injur......
-
Lemoine v. Springfield Hockey Ass'n, Inc.
...Ocean View Amusement Co., 289 Mass. 587, 194 N.E. 911;Stager v. G. E. Lothrop Theatres Co., 291 Mass. 464, 197 N.E. 86;O'Brien v. Freeman, 299 Mass. 20, 11 N.E.2d 582;Correira v. Atlantic Amusement Co., 302 Mass. 81, 18 N.E.2d 435;Keenan v. E. M. Loew's, Inc., 302 Mass. 309, 19 N.E.2d 37;Ca......