Curtis v. Kiley
| Citation | 153 Mass. 123,26 N.E. 421 |
| Parties | CURTIS v. KILEY et al. |
| Decision Date | 12 January 1891 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Exceptions from superior court, Essex county CHARLES P. THOMPSON, Judge.
Landlord and Tenant 167(8)
233 ----
233VII Premises, and Enjoyment and Use Thereof
233VII(E) Injuries from Dangerous or Defective Condition
233k167 Injuries to Third Persons and Their Property
233k167(8) Injuries to Visitors or Guests of Tenant.
A landlord who contracts with a plumber to perform work requiring excavations about the premises is liable for injuries sustained by a visitor to one of the tenants from falling into an excavation negligently left unguarded by the contractor, where it was so near the usual pathway as to render it unsafe.
An action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by falling into a trench which had been dug in process of constructing a drain upon premises owned by the defendants. From the undisputed evidence at the trial, it appeared that the defendants were the owners of a lot of land upon the corner of Common and Newbury streets, in Lawrence in the county of Essex, upon which were situated two tenement houses, and a building used as a wood and coal shed; that all of the buildings were occupied by tenants of defendants; and that the drain in question was being constructed in a yard about 80 feet square, used in common by the tenants. Plaintiff, who was not a tenant of defendants, testified that upon the Tuesday evening prior to the accident she visited Mrs. Lahey, a tenant of the defendants, and at her request having been informed that there was an excavation in the southerly part of the premises near the house occupied by Mrs. Lahey, she entered upon the premises from Newbury street, where there was an entrance, which was open, and had been used for many years, instead of by a passage on the south, which was the way commonly used by persons going to and from the Lahey house; that about 8 o'clock on the evening of Thursday, August 22, 1889, she again entered the premises from Newbury street, and in crossing the yard to the Laheys' fell into the excavation, and suffered the injuries for which she seeks to recover. Plaintiff testified there were no lights about the excavation, and that she met with no obstacle before falling in.
W.S. Knox, for plaintiff.
J.J. Mahoney, for defendants.
As we understand the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Butler
...in a safe condition and cannot excuse himself on the ground that the premises are under exclusive control of the contractor. Curtis v. Kieley, 153 Mass. 123; Coughtry v. Woolen Co., 56 N.Y. FARIS, J. Lamm, C. J., and Woodson, Graves, Bond and Walker, JJ., concur; Brown, J., concurs except i......
-
Glaser v. Rothschild
...... Assn., 205 Mo. 520; Nephler v. Woodward, 200. Mo. 188; Hartman v. Muchbach, 64 Mo.App. 565;. Nichols v. Railroad, 83 Va. 99; Curtis v. Kiley, 153 Mass. 123; Powers v. Harlow, 53. Mich. 507; Wilsey v. Jewett Bros. & Co., 98 N.W. 114. And plaintiff was entitled to have the ......
-
Otto Press v. Penny
...... dangerous to others. Independence v. Slack, 134 Mo. 75; Peters v. Railroad, 131 S.W. 917; Thompson on. Negligence, sec. 621; Curtis v. Kiley, 153 Mass. 123. (3) Defendant was liable for injuries caused by the. servants of the Scott and Wolff Painting Company, in removing. the ......
-
Smith v. August A. Busch Co. of Mass.
...on a breach of the obligation owed the customer and need not depend upon any negligence of the independent contractor. See Curtis v. Kiley, 153 Mass. 123, 26 N.E. 421; Levesque v. Hildreth & Rogers Co., 276 Mass. 429, 434, 177 N.E. 623; Newell v. K. & D. Jewelry Co., Inc., 119 Conn. 332, 33......