Faxon v. Butler
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | BRALEY |
| Citation | 206 Mass. 500,92 N.E. 707 |
| Parties | FAXON v. BUTLER et al. |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1910 |
206 Mass. 500
92 N.E. 707
FAXON
v.
BUTLER et al.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.
Oct. 19, 1910.
Exceptions from Superior Court, Berkshire County; John C. Crosby, Judge.
Action by Endora N. Faxon against W. H. Butler and others to recover damages for personal injuries to plaintiff while passing through a hallway to reach a rented room occupied by plaintiff in a lodging house owned and operated by defendants. There was a verdict for defendants, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Sustained.
[206 Mass. 503]Shaw & Harrington, for plaintiff.
C. T. Phelps and P. J. Ashe, for defendants.
BRALEY, J.
The defendants having retained possession and control of the hallways of the building, which were intended to be used in common by tenants, were required to maintain them in the same condition as they were in at the time of the letting to the plaintiff. Wilcox v. Zane, 167 Mass. 302, 45 N. E. 923;Andrews v. Williamson, 193 Mass. 92, 94, 78 N. E. 737,118 Am. St. Rep. 452. It is apparent from the plaintiff's [206 Mass. 504]evidence that, the hallway on the second floor upon which her room opened having been constructed without windows, the defendants as a part of their general management of the building always lighted and maintained, after dark, a gaslight in this hall, which not only was left burning until midnight, but the jury could find was not usually extinguished before the next morning. The plaintiff no doubt took the premises as she found them, so far as the arrangement of the hallways was obvious. But under the conditions to which she testified, the risk of personal injury from using during these hours an unlighted hall, which might become dangerous because of the location of the stairs leading to the story below, she did not assume. The defendants make no contention that, when injured, she was not lawfully using the hall, and, if the jury were satisfied that the light had been extinguished before the usual time, they would have been
warranted in finding that the defendants were negligent. Lindsey v. Leighton, 150 Mass. 285, 288, 22 N. E. 901,15 Am. St. Rep. 199;Leydecker v. Brintnall, 158 Mass. 292, 33 N. E. 399;Oxford v. Leathe, 165 Mass. 254, 43 N. E. 92;Wilcox v. Zane, 167 Mass. 302, 45 N. E. 923. Nor can it be said, as matter of law, that the plaintiff failed to use due care. The hall had been lighted as usual when she passed through it to the room on the same floor where she was employed, and upon completion of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durkin v. Lewitz, Gen. No. 46283
...in which they existed at the time of the letting. Cerricola v. Darena, 1929, 266 Mass. 267, 165 N.E. 124; Faxon v. Butler, 1910, 206 Mass. 500, 92 N.E. In Purcell v. English, 1882, 86 Ind. 34, the court justified its adoption of the Massachusetts rule in the following language: 'If any othe......
-
Brogie v. Vogel
...to be a dark or dimly lighted closet. See Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513, 517-518, 25 N.E. 978, 9 L.R.A. 640; Faxon v. Butler, 206 Mass. 500, 504, 92 N.E. 707; Story v. Lyon Realty Corp., 308 Mass. 66, 71-72, 30 N.E.2d 845; O'Brien v. Peterson, 329 Mass. 427, 430, 108 N.E.2d 538; Hubbard......
-
Gibson v. Hoppman
...to be to a person of ordinary observation when his tenancy began, Andrews v. Williamson, 193 Mass. 92, 78 N.E. 737; Faxon v. Butler, 206 Mass. 500, 92 N.E. 707, 138 Am.St.Rep. 405, 19 Ann.Cas. 666; and the rule is broadly laid down that the landlord is not obligated to make structural chang......
-
Gibson v. Hoppman
...to be to a person of ordinary observation when his tenancy began, Andrews V. Williamson, 193 Mass. 92, 78 N. E. 737; Faxon v. Butler, 206 Mass. 500, 92 N. E. 707, 138 Am. St. Rep. 405, 19 Ann. Cas. 666; and the rule is broadly laid down that the landlord is not obligated to make structural ......
-
Durkin v. Lewitz, Gen. No. 46283
...in which they existed at the time of the letting. Cerricola v. Darena, 1929, 266 Mass. 267, 165 N.E. 124; Faxon v. Butler, 1910, 206 Mass. 500, 92 N.E. In Purcell v. English, 1882, 86 Ind. 34, the court justified its adoption of the Massachusetts rule in the following language: 'If any othe......
-
Brogie v. Vogel
...to be a dark or dimly lighted closet. See Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513, 517-518, 25 N.E. 978, 9 L.R.A. 640; Faxon v. Butler, 206 Mass. 500, 504, 92 N.E. 707; Story v. Lyon Realty Corp., 308 Mass. 66, 71-72, 30 N.E.2d 845; O'Brien v. Peterson, 329 Mass. 427, 430, 108 N.E.2d 538; Hubbard......
-
L'Heureux v. Hurley
...Conn. 401, 410, 143 A. 635, 75 A. L. R. 148; Andrews v. Williamson, 193 Mass. 92, 78 N. E. 737, 118 Am. St. Rep. 452; Faxon v. Butler, 206 Mass. 500, 92 N. E. 707, 138 Am. St. Rep. 405, 19 Ann. Cas. 666; Valin v. Jewell, 88 Conn. 151, 90 A. 36, L. R. A. 1915B, 321. "Nor is the principle res......
-
Gibson v. Hoppman
...to be to a person of ordinary observation when his tenancy began, Andrews v. Williamson, 193 Mass. 92, 78 N.E. 737; Faxon v. Butler, 206 Mass. 500, 92 N.E. 707, 138 Am.St.Rep. 405, 19 Ann.Cas. 666; and the rule is broadly laid down that the landlord is not obligated to make structural chang......