Bruso v. Eastern States Exposition

• Decision Date: 03 October 1929
• Citation: 168 N.E. 206,269 Mass. 21
• Parties: BRUSO v. EASTERN STATES EXPOSITION.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

269 Mass. 21

168 N.E. 206

BRUSO

v.EASTERN STATES EXPOSITION.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Oct. 3, 1929.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; D. F. Dillion, Judge.

Action by Francis T. Bruso, through his father and next friend Francis E. Bruso, against the Eastern States Exposition. Directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.Simpson, Clason & Callahan, of Springfield, for plaintiff.

Harold P. Small and C. H. Beckwith, both of Springfield, for defendant.

SANDERSON, J.

The plaintiff, a boy thirteen years of age, seeks to recover for injuries alleged to have been received by him while upon the premises of the defendant, through the gross negligence, carelessness, wilful, wanton or reckless conduct of the defendant as set forth in three counts of the declaration.

On July 16, 1927, an Italian Society, with the permission of the defendant, offered a display of fireworks upon the premises of the defendant for which an admission was charged and the defendant shared in the proceeds thereof. On July 20, 1927, the plaintiff found on the defendant's grounds an unexploded part of a piece of fireworks from which he took explosive powder and put it in a bag. Accompanied by another boy he walked a short distance and sat down upon a spur track which entered the defendant's grounds. He lighted a piece of paper which he laid on a tie, and poured the powder from the bag slowly upon the blazing paper with the result that immediately an explosion occurred which caused the loss of the plaintiff's right hand. At the close of the evidence the judge subject to the plaintiff'sexception directed a verdict for the defendant. The material evidence is reported.

The grounds comprise about one hundred and seventy-two acres, most of which are enclosed. Several times after the display of fireworks and before the accident the plaintiff, and his companion, had put powder which he had found on the grounds onto pieces of paper lighted by the plaintiff with matches carried by him. This powder when lighted made a slight noise and burned with a colored light. The explosive powder which caused the injury was found by the plaintiff wrapped in brown paper which appeared to be scorched. It was near an unloading wall on the defendant's grounds. This powder was aluminum in color.

The evidence tended to prove that many children were playing on the grounds both before and on the days following the fireworks display and some pieces of unexploded fireworks were found by them. The plaintiff testified that daily during the summer he had gone upon the defendant's grounds to play, had ridden his bicycle there and had seen other children playing, fishing and swimming, that at times he had skated upon a pond within the grounds, and on no occasion had he been asked to leave the premises. Other witnesses testified that from time to time they had played upon the defendant's grounds and had not been requested to leave. The plaintiff's mother testified that she knew her boy was playing on the premises, and upon inquiry learned from the manager that as long as the children did not destroy the defendant's property they were permitted to play there.

The defendant's superintendent testified that for years fireworks had been displayed on the grounds, and immediately thereafter refuse and débris had been found and picked up by the fireworks company and the defendant's employees. On the day following the display on July 16th, which was held on a stormy night, he directed the defendant's employees to pick up the débris that was scattered over the premises for about one hundred and fifty feet from the place of the display, and in the case of rockets and fireworks of a similar nature the débris was probably more widely scattered. He knew of an occasion five or six years before the accident when there was an explosion of fireworks caused by a horse-drawn mowing machine passing over them. There were signs upon the premises offering a reward for the conviction of any one damaging the defendant's property. No testimony was introduced to show that the defendant had knowledge of any powder being in the vicinity of the place where the plaintiff found the powder which caused his injury, or that this particular powder was brought or left upon the premises by...