Davis v. Bean
| Decision Date | 17 September 1937 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. BEAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action in tort by Frances Davis against Carrie R. Bean. From an order of the Appellate Division for the Northern District dismissing a report in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Order dismissing report affirmed.Appeal from Appellate Division of District Court, Northern District; Phelan, Judge.
Harry I. Berman, of Lynn, for appellant.
John J. Sullivan and Walter I. Badger, both of Boston, for appellee.
The plaintiff sues for personal injuries received by her as the result of a fall alleged to have been caused by defective linoleum at the top of stairs in a building owned and controlled by the defendant to which the plaintiff had gone to inquire about the hiring of a tenement.
The case turns upon what, if any, invitation was extended by the defendant to the plaintiff. The evidence most favorable to the plaintiff was this: The defendant lived at 572 Essex Street, Lynn. She advertised in a local paper, ‘Five room flat to let, heated, * * * apply at 572 Essex Street.’ The plaintiff saw the advertisement and ‘went looking for #572 Essex Street.’ She came to 574 Essex Street, owned by the defendant, and saw a sign in the vacant lower tenement which read, ‘Five Room Tenement To-Let, Heated.’ She went to the front door of No. 574 and rang the bell. Receiving no answer, she went around to the rear door and rang the bell connected with the lower floor. There being still no response, she entered the hallway and walked up a common stairway to the second floor, where she talked with the tenant on that floor and was told that ‘the landlady’ lived next door at No. 572. The accident occurred as she started to return down the stairs.
This evidence was insufficient to support a finding that at the time she was injured the plaintiff was acting within the scope of any invitation from the defendant. The advertisement invited the plaintiff to the defendant's residence at No. 572 and not to No. 574. The invitation, if there was any, implied from the sign in the front of the vacant lower tenement cannot, upon any evidence in this case, be stretched to cover a visit to the second floor reached through a rear door and stairway. There was nothing to suggest to applicants that they were expected to take that course. Cowen v. Kirby, 180 Mass. 504, 62 N.E. 968;Morong v. Spofford, 218 Mass. 50, 105 N.E. 454, L.R.A.1915B, 387;Graham...
To continue reading
Request your trial