Currier v. Boston Music Hall Ass'n

• Decision Date: 08 September 1883
• Citation: 135 Mass. 414
• Parties: Emily F. Currier v. Boston Music Hall Association
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

135 Mass. 414

Emily F. Currier v. Boston Music Hall Association

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 8, 1883

Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while in the defendant's hall, on October 8, 1879. Trial in the Superior Court, before Rockwell, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show tat, while using ordinary care in passing along one of the alleys in the gallery of said hall, being a spectator at a public meeting advertised and held in the hall, there was a depression in the alley, into which she stepped and fell, and received the injuries complained of; that the hall was insufficiently lighted at the time of the accident, so that she could not see said depression, or step-down, and save herself therefrom; and that she had no notice thereof.

The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the hall was properly and safely constructed in the part where the plaintiff was injured; and for that purpose called an architect, who was permitted by the court to give, as an expert, his opinion as to whether the hall was properly constructed in that regard at the time it was built and at the time of the accident.

The defendant also offered evidence tending to show that the hall was constructed for the defendant about twenty-nine years ago; and that the construction in that particular had not been altered or changed during that time.

The defendant also called as a witness the architect who built the hall; and he was allowed to testify that he built it properly at the time it was built, and "he did not know how to build it any better now."

It was also in evidence, and not in dispute, that the defendant had owned and lighted the hall as a place of public meeting ever since its construction; and that the lighting of the hall was under the defendant's charge and control.

The judge instructed the jury as follows: "The plaintiff must satisfy the jury, in order to recover, that the defendant has been wanting in ordinary care in the construction of this gallery, as to its planes, steps, or levels, and their relation to each other, and that the defendant knew that the construction was faulty or defective. If the superintendent of the Music Hall, in the employ of the defendant, knew all about the hall and its construction, and was there present in charge that evening, in view of the premises and the lights, as the evidence tended to show, that is sufficient knowledge to render the defendant liable. The defendant was not bound, in regard to the construction of the hall and gallery, to have the very best mode of construction known to the mechanic arts at this period of time. It is sufficient, in the matter of construction, if the construction conforms in its methods to methods now approved as good and safe by the best mechanics and architects."

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

Exceptions sustained.

W. B French, for the plaintiff, cited Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. 392; Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 731; Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 556; Chapman v Rothwell, El., Bl. & El. 168; Scott v. London Docks, 11 L. T. (N. S.) 383; Wendell v. Baxter, 12 Gray 494; Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport Railroad, 10 Allen 368; Pittsburgh v. Grier, 22 Penn. St. 54.

R. D. Smith & G. H. Lyman, for the defendant, cited Welfare v. London & Brighton Railway, L. R. 4 Q. B. 693; Brazier v. Polytechnic Inst. 1 F. & F. 507; Pike v. Polytechnic Inst. 1 F. & F. 712; Boyle v. Mowry, 122 Mass. 251.

C. Allen J. Devens & W. Allen JJ., absent.

OPINION

C. Allen J.

The true question to be determined in this case was whether the defendant had failed...