De Filippo v. Pietro

CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtRUGG
Citation265 Mass. 186,163 N.E. 742
PartiesDE FILIPPO v. DI PIETRO.
Decision Date28 November 1928

265 Mass. 186
163 N.E. 742

DE FILIPPO
v.
DI PIETRO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Nov. 28, 1928.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Joseph Walsh, Judge.

Action by Annie De Filippo against Andrew Di Pietro. Verdict for plaintiff and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.


[265 Mass. 188]Joseph Santosuosso and John W. Vaughan, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

David Flower, of Boston, for defendant.


RUGG, C. J.

This is an action of tort whereby the plaintiff, a tenant, seeks to recover of the defendant, her landlord, for injuries alleged to have been sustained by the defective condition of a common stairway in the control of the defendant.

One issue at the trial was whether the plaintiff might be found to have been in the exercise of due care. The evidence upon this point was that a defect in the stairway arising from a broken step had existed for about four weeks prior to the plaintiff's injury and that during this period the plaintiff had walked up and down these stairs almost every day and had seen the defect that at the time of the accident it was so light that she could have seen it if she had looked, but that in coming down the stairs she did not look to see where she was stepping and was not as careful as she had been on previous occasions; that the defect in the step had gone out of her mind at the moment and she was not thinking of it. This evidence warranted findings that the defect in the stair arose after the commencement of the tenancy a number of years before and that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33, 36,37 Am. Rep. 295;Callahan v. Dickson, 210 Mass. 510, 515, 96 N. E. 1029.

Another issue at the trial was whether the plaintiff had lost weight by reason of the accident. Her husband testified that she had been weighed upon a scale where, by putting a penny in a slot, a card came out with

[163 N.E. 743]

figures on it indicating the weight, and that as the card came out it showed on several occasions ‘Sometimes 102 and sometimes 104 pounds.’ If the witness were present and saw with his own eyes the card with the figures upon it come out of the machine, it was competent for him to testify what those figures were. Such testimony would stand on the same footing as testimony of the indication of the weight upon an ordinary platform scale. It is argued that the witness was not present but was testifying from what he saw upon slips shown him by the plaintiff....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Beauvais v. Springfield Inst. for Sav.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 6, 1939
    ...no error in the absence of evidence or requested rulings. Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388, 156 N.E. 712; DiFilippo v. DiPietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742. The jury found for the plaintiff upon the first count for conscious suffering, which was based upon the gross negligence of th......
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 1, 1944
    ...upon which the ruling of which he complains was based. Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388, 156 N.E. 712;DeFilippo v. Di Pietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742;Morganti v. Casey, 311 Mass. 46, 40 N.E.2d 257. Where, as here, a review is sought under G.L.(Ter. Ed.) c. 278, §§ 33A–33G, as ame......
  • Cooper v. Hoeglund, Nos. 34115
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 5, 1946
    ...inquiry. Commonwealth v. Buxton, 205 Mass. 49, 91 N.E. 128;City of Spokane v. Knight, 96 Wash. 403, 165 P. 105;De Filippo v. Di Pietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742.2 Use of objects to demonstrate oral testimony is proper. Timmerman v. March, 199 Minn. 376, 271 N.W. 697;Backstrom v. New York......
  • Cooper v. Hoeglund, No. 34115.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 5, 1946
    ...inquiry. Commonwealth v. Buxton, 205 Mass. 49, 91 N.E. 128; City of Spokane v. Knight, 96 Wash. 403, 165 P. 105; De Filippo v. Di Pietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742.2 Use of objects to demonstrate oral testimony is proper. Timmerman v. March, 199 Minn. 376, 271 N.W. 697; Backstrom v. New Y......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Beauvais v. Springfield Inst. for Sav.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 6, 1939
    ...no error in the absence of evidence or requested rulings. Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388, 156 N.E. 712; DiFilippo v. DiPietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742. The jury found for the plaintiff upon the first count for conscious suffering, which was based upon the gross negligence of th......
  • Commonwealth v. Boris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 1, 1944
    ...upon which the ruling of which he complains was based. Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388, 156 N.E. 712;DeFilippo v. Di Pietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742;Morganti v. Casey, 311 Mass. 46, 40 N.E.2d 257. Where, as here, a review is sought under G.L.(Ter. Ed.) c. 278, §§ 33A–33G, as ame......
  • Cooper v. Hoeglund, Nos. 34115
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 5, 1946
    ...inquiry. Commonwealth v. Buxton, 205 Mass. 49, 91 N.E. 128;City of Spokane v. Knight, 96 Wash. 403, 165 P. 105;De Filippo v. Di Pietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742.2 Use of objects to demonstrate oral testimony is proper. Timmerman v. March, 199 Minn. 376, 271 N.W. 697;Backstrom v. New York......
  • Cooper v. Hoeglund, No. 34115.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 5, 1946
    ...inquiry. Commonwealth v. Buxton, 205 Mass. 49, 91 N.E. 128; City of Spokane v. Knight, 96 Wash. 403, 165 P. 105; De Filippo v. Di Pietro, 265 Mass. 186, 163 N.E. 742.2 Use of objects to demonstrate oral testimony is proper. Timmerman v. March, 199 Minn. 376, 271 N.W. 697; Backstrom v. New Y......
  • 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