Dean v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 22 November 1897
• Citation: Dean v. Murphy, 48 N.E. 283, 169 Mass. 413 (Mass. 1897)
• Parties: DEAN v. MURPHY.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

169 Mass. 413

48 N.E. 283

DEAN v. MURPHY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

November 22, 1897

The action was for damages sustained by plaintiff who was defendant's tenant, on or near November 10, 1894 by reason of a defect in a set of wooden steps or stairs attached to and connected with the demised tenement house owned by defendant, when the accident occurred. Of plaintiff's witness Mrs. Wilson the question was asked by the plaintiff's attorney in regard to the light in the hallway, "Was there any light in the hallway?" To this question the defendant objected. The plaintiff's attorney then said: "I offer this on the ground that, if light in the hallway had rendered this light,--showed the steps,--that would have been one element in the question of due care on her part. I understand it was the landlord's duty to look after the hallways, stairways, and steps; and if the steps were in an unsafe condition,--if he had a light to show that,--that would tend to make the care on her part greater. My brother claims she was not going up the middle of the steps. We claim it was so dark she could not see."

COUNSEL

N.P. Avery and A.B. Chapin, for plaintiff.

J.B. Carroll and W.H. McClintock, for defendant.

OPINION

BARKER J.

We do not understand from the bill of exceptions that the court excluded any direct testimony that the steps were defective before or at the time when the plaintiff met with her accident. She testified that the step was loose. Her son testified that the steps were all right when she moved into the tenement, and that he knew that they were loose just before she was hurt, and that he noticed they were loose about two months before she was hurt. Mrs. Wilson, the witness who was not allowed to answer the question whether or not she had fallen on the same step in the same manner before the accident to the plaintiff, was allowed to testify that the steps were loose. We therefore regard the question whether she had herself fallen on the step, and the offer to show that the condition of the steps when she fell was the same as when the plaintiff was hurt, as an attempt to show merely that a like accident had previously happened upon the steps to another person than the plaintiff, and, the happening of such an accident being immaterial, and the witness having been allowed to testify to the condition of the steps, which was material, we think that evidence that she had met...