Cronin v. City of Boston

• Decision Date: 04 May 1883
• Citation: 135 Mass. 110
• Parties: Ann Cronin v. City of Boston
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

135 Mass. 110

Ann Cronin v. City of Boston

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

May 4, 1883

Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries received by the plaintiff on February 8, 1881, by reason of an alleged defect in the sidewalk of Hanover Street, a public highway in Boston. Trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

The defect consisted of an accumulation of ice on the sidewalk in front of 371 Hanover Street, said number being the number on the fifth door from Fleet Street. A written notice, dated February 16, 1881, and signed by the plaintiff, was given to the defendant within thirty days after the accident, as follows: "To the City of Boston: You are hereby notified that on the eighth day of February, 1881, while in the use of due care, and walking on Hanover Street between Clark and Fleet Streets, on the southerly side of said street, the sidewalk was so rough, hobbly and slippery that, with the utmost care I could use in walking over said sidewalk, I went down and broke my arm."

It appeared in evidence that Hanover Street is a much frequented thoroughfare, and the distance between the two nearest corners of Fleet Street and Clark Street is between one hundred and seventy-nine and one hundred and eighty feet; and that there are fifteen doorways between said streets, and the numbers run from 365 to 385. There are no cross streets or passageways leading from Hanover Street between Clark Street and Fleet Street. The defendant contended that said notice was insufficient, and not in conformity with the statute, in that it did not sufficiently designate either the time, place or cause of the accident; and asked the judge to rule that the notice was insufficient, and that the plaintiff could not maintain her action. But the judge refused so to rule. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that it was misled by the notice; that neither by searching the locality nor by inquiry of the plaintiff could it ascertain the locality of the alleged defect, and that it was ignorant of the place of the accident until the plaintiff testified; but the judge ruled that the question of the sufficiency of the notice was a question entirely for the court, and that the notice was sufficient.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

T. M Babson, for the defendant.

N. L Graffam, for the plaintiff.

OPINION

Field J.

The St. of 1877, c. 234, § 3, required notice to be given "of the time, place and cause of the said injury or damage." In the notice given in this case the time was sufficiently described. Donnelly v. Fall River, 132 Mass. 299. Savory v Haverhill, 132 Mass. 324. The cause alleged in the notice is that the sidewalk was "rough, hobbly and slippery." It appears by the exceptions that "the defect consisted of an accumulation of ice on the sidewalk in front of 371 Hanover Street." There is no mention of ice in the notice. Unless, then, it is a reasonable construction of the notice, under...