Downing v. Jordan Marsh Co.

Decision Date28 November 1919
Citation125 N.E. 207,234 Mass. 159
PartiesDOWNING v. JORDAN MARSH CO.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; W. P. Hall, Judge.

Action by Helen J. Downing against the Jordan Marsh Company, resulting in a directed verdict for defendant. On report to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment ordered for defendant.

Herbert A. Kenny, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston (E. C. Stone and Gay Gleason, both of Boston, of counsel), for defendant.

CARROLL, J.

The plaintiff went to the defendant's store accompanied by her aunt, who intended to buy ‘some wings for a hat that * * * [the plaintiff] was to make.’ As they were leaving the store the plaintiff tripped on a wire mat near the exit on Summer street and was injured. The judge directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant and reported the case.

There was evidence that the mat was about three feet wide and about four or five feet long, set in a ‘groove about an inch wide’; that the edge of the mat was above this groove and the plaintiff tripped on the edge of the mat, ‘which was a little higher than where it sets in’; that the mat was ‘humpy and badly curled,’ and there was a ‘bulge’ in it.

If the plaintiff came to the defendant's premises under an implied invitation, as distinguished from a mere license, to recover she must show that the defendant was negligent. Assuming but not deciding that the mat was defective, it did not appear for how long a time it had been so, or that the defendant or its servants knew, or might have known, of it by the use of reasonable care. If the plaintiff fell because she tripped against the edge of the mat which was lifted out of the groove, there is nothing in the evidence to show what caused this condition, or for how long a time it had existed prior to the plaintiff's injury. There was, therefore, no evidence that the defendant was negligent. Douglas v. Shepard-Norwell Co., 217 Mass. 127, 104 N. E. 491;Kelley v. W. D. Quimby & Co., 227 Mass. 93, 116 N. E. 409;Hathaway v. Chandler & Co., 229 Mass. 92, 118 N. E. 273;Zugbie v. J. R. Whipple Co., 230 Mass. 19, 119 N. E. 191.

The case at bar is to be distinguished from Wheeler v. Sawyer, 219 Mass. 103, 106 N. E. 592,Nye v. Louis K. Liggett Co., 224 Mass. 401, 113 N. E. 201, and Toland v. Paine Furniture Co., 179 Mass. 501, 61 N. E. 52. In the first of these cases the brass binding on the edge of the step near the top of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Stewart v. George B. Peck Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 3 Julio 1939
    ... ... 759; Taylor v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 240 ... S.W. 513; Downing v. Jordon Marsh Co., 234 Mass ... 159, 125 N.E. 207; Broadston v. Biddeo Clothing Co., ... ...
  • Stewart v. George B. Peck Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 3 Julio 1939
    ...558, 79 Atl. 324; Leach v. S.S. Kresge Co., 147 Atl. 759; Taylor v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co., 240 S.W. 513; Downing v. Jordon Marsh Co., 234 Mass. 159, 125 N.E. 207; Broadston v. Biddeo Clothing Co., 178 N.W. 190; Finn v. Terminal Ry. Assn. of St. Louis, 97 S.W. (2d) 890; Buda v. Dzuret......
  • Moore v. Sears
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 14 Febrero 1931
    ...Boston & Maine Railroad, 179 Mass. 52, 60 N. E. 486; Lyons v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 204 Mass. 227, 90 N. E. 419; Downing v. Jordan Marsh Co., 234 Mass. 159, 125 N. E. 207. There might be some merit in this contention if the petition had not alleged that the defendant placed and left the ......
  • Griffin v. New York, N.H.&H.R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 2 Julio 1932
    ...v. Boston Elevated Railway, 224 Mass. 405, 112 N. E. 1025;Silano v. Carosella, 272 Mass. 203, 206, 172 N. E. 216;Downing v. Jordan Marsh Co., 234 Mass. 159, 125 N. E. 207;Towne v. Waltham Watch Co., 247 Mass. 390, 141 N. E. 675;Murphy v. Furness-Withy & Co., Ltd., 259 Ass. 394, 156 N. E. 83......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT