Frappier v. Lincoln Stores, Inc.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1932 |
| Citation | 279 Mass. 14,180 N.E. 522 |
| Parties | FRAPPIER v. LINCOLN STORES, Inc. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Sisk, Judge.
Action by Josephine Frappier against the Lincoln Stores, Inc. Verdict for defendant. On plaintiff's exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
J. J. Bruin, of Lowell, for plaintiff.
J. H. Gilbride, of Lowell, for defendant.
The plaintiff, in company with her husband, went to the store of the defendant for the purpose of purchasinggoods, and while descending a stairway used for customers the heel of her shoe caught on a tack on the second step, as the result of which she fell and was injured. The heel of her shoe was made of leather with a rubber heel attached. There was evidence that after the accident the step was examined by the plaintiff's husband in company with the defendant's manager. The plaintiff's husband testified that he noticed a ‘push tack,’ ‘one of those half inch head ones, or three-fourths inch point on it’; that the head of it was highly polished and scratched and half an inch in diameter; that the tack was imbedded in the step and extended about three-eighths or half an inch above the surface of the step; that it was removed and the point was rusty and dark; that before removal it was bent over to the side. It is recited in the record that ‘there is no claim on the part of the plaintiff that the step or stairway was not properly lighted, or that [the] tack was part of the construction of the premises, and [the] plaintiff rested her case upon the claim that the tack imbedded in the stairway caused her fall; there was no testimony where the tack came from.’ At the close of the evidence the defendant filed a motion for a directed verdict, which was granted subject to the plaintiff's exception.
The question of law presented for decision is whether or not the presence of the tack as described constituted an actionable defect in the stairway. Many cases have been decided by this court where a nail or other substance protruding above the floor, steps or other place has caused a person to fall and thereby receive a personal injury. In these cases the general question as to the extent to which such nail or other substance protruded above the step or floor has been deemed important in deciding whether it constituted an actionable defect. See Young v. Snell, 200 Mass. 242, 86 N. E. 282,19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242;Shavelson v. Marcus, 273 Mass. 237, 173 N. E. 596;Solomon v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 276 Mass. 139, 176 N. E. 810;Jennings v. Tompkins, 180 Mass. 302, 62 N. E. 265;Johnson v. Fainstein, 219 Mass. 537, 107 N. E. 351;Leslie v. Glazer, 273 Mass. 221, 173 N. E....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. George B. Peck Co.
... ... O'Malley v. City of St. Louis, 119 S.W.2d 785; ... Frappier v. Lincoln Stores, 279 Mass. 214, 180 N.E ... 522; Chapman v ... caused plaintiff's fall. McKeighan v. Klines, ... Inc., 339 Mo. 523, 98 S.W.2d 555; State ex rel ... Trading Post v. Shain, ... ...
-
Stewart v. George B. Peck Co.
...234, 52 S.W. (2d) 487; Taylor v. Kansas City, 112 S.W. (2d) 562; O'Malley v. City of St. Louis, 119 S.W. (2d) 785; Frappier v. Lincoln Stores, 279 Mass. 214, 180 N.E. 522; Chapman v. Clothier, 274 Pa. 394, 118 Atl. 356; Brace v. Kirby, 43 Pa. Sup. Ct. 389; Johnson v. Fainstein, 219 Mass. 53......
-
Foley v. F.W. Woolworth Co.
...of Lynn, Inc., 279 Mass. 574, 181 N.E. 660,Sisson v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 277 Mass. 431, 178 N.E. 733,Frappier v. Lincoln Stores, Inc., 279 Mass. 14, 180 N.E. 522,McBreen v. Collins, 284 Mass. 253, 187 N.E. 591,Cartoof v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 262 Mass. 367, 160 N.E. 109,O'Leary v. S......
-
Jones v. Kurn
... ... Atlantic Coast Line, 71 F.2d 115; Frappier v ... Lincoln Stores, 279 Mass. 14, 180 N.E. 522. (c) In a ... ...