Craig v. Inhabitants of Town of Leominster

• Decision Date: 22 October 1908
• Citation: 85 N.E. 855,200 Mass. 101
• Parties: CRAIG v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF LEOMINSTER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

200 Mass. 101

85 N.E. 855

CRAIG v. INHABITANTS OF TOWN OF LEOMINSTER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 22, 1908

Oct 22, 1908.

COUNSEL

James E. McConnell and J. H. P. Dyer, for plaintiff.

Franklin Freeman, Charles A. Babbitt, and J. Ward Healey, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The plaintiff, in the evening of September 21, 1905, struck her foot against a rope stretched along a street in the defendant town and was thrown down and injured. The rope was attached to a building which was being moved through the street with the permission of the selectmen granted in accordance with Rev. Laws, c. 52, § 13. While the building was being moved the rope, which was attached at one end to a capstan, was itself in motion, under the care of the workmen. As the work went on, there was interference by the building with the system of wires for electrical lighting, and the building was stopped until the wires could be cut by the employés of the lighting company, and the rope was left taut in a line about 18 inches above the surface of the street. This action was brought on the ground that the defendant was liable for a defect in the street.

At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the judge ruled as follows: 'Your evidence shows that the rope was statinary and not in use at 8:30 p. m. Your plaintiff says that she left the church between 8:30 and a quarter of 9, and it took her perhaps 5 minutes to get there. No evidence has been introduced to show that any of the town officials had notice and therefore the question arises whether 15 or 20 minutes at the outside, was sufficient time within which the town ought reasonably to have had notice of the condition of thing there. I am of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.' A verdict having been rendered for the defendant, the question whether this ruling was correct is reported to this court.

We assume in favor of the plaintiff that the rope, in its position at the time of the accident, constituted a defect within the meaning of the statute. It was not then in use and it ought not to have been left stretched a foot and a half above the ground in the darkenss of the evening. On the other hand, the use of the street for the removal of the building with written permission from the selectmen, was lawful. It is to be inferred on this record that the permission was properly granted in accordance with the provisions of the statute. We must assume that, in giving the permission, terms had been imposed such as the public safety required. The existence of the building in the street would necessarily cause some obstruction to travel, and the capstan and ropes, such as are ordinarily and rightly used in moving a building, would interfere with ordinary travel at the places where they were set up, while they were in use in drawing forward the building. In a less degree, every vehicle or team moving on a street interferes for the time with the use of that part of the street which it occupies. It is the duty of every person in charge of such a vehicle or team, as well as of every person moving a building in a street, to take proper measures for the protection of other travelers, so far as his occupation of the street might expose them to danger. ...