Glaser v. Congregation Kehillath Israel

Decision Date28 May 1928
Citation161 N.E. 619,263 Mass. 435
PartiesGLASER v. CONGREGATION KEHILLATH ISRAEL.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Norfolk County; John D. McLaughlin, Judge.

Action by Helena Glaser against the Congregation Kehillath Israel. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained, and judgment for defendant ordered.J. F. O'Connell, of Boston, and E. H. Lane, of Winthrop, for plaintiff.

J. E. Begley, of Woburn, and W. Rosnosky, of Boston, for defendant.

RUGG, C. J.

This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries caused to the plaintiff by falling on an accumulation of snow and ice on the steps leading from the street to the entrance of the temple of the defendant, a building devoted to religious purposes. The plaintiff was not a member of the congregation but attended the service at the time in question in response to a written invitation from the defendant. The corporate purposes of the defendant, as declared in its charter, are ‘the maintenance of public worship in accordance with the law and traditional customs of the orthodox Jewish faith and the maintenance of a religious school’ and other kindred matters not here material. The verdict for the plaintiff rendered by the jury after full and appropriate instructions, to which no exceptions were taken, establishes in her favor essential facts as to her due care and the causal connection of her injuries with the negligence of the defendant. The single question is whether the written motion for the direction of a verdict for the defendant ought to have been granted.

The defendant is a charitable corporation. ‘No object is more clearly charitable, in the sense of the law, than the advancement of religion and education among an indefinite number of persons.’ Fairbanks v. Lamson, 99 Mass. 533;Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539, 552, 553. A gift for a ‘church, in the modern sense of that word, as a place for public worship, open to everybody and established for the promotion of religion and morality among all people, whether regularly connected with its ecclesiastical organization or not, is a charity.’ Chase v. Dickey, 212 Mass. 555, 556, 99 N. E. 410, 411, and many cases there collected. These cases have been followed in more recent decisions. That principle is not now open to discussion. Ripley v. Brown, 218 Mass. 33, 37, 105 N. E. 637;Crawford v. Nies, 220 Mass. 61, 64, 107 N. E. 382;Crawford v. Nies, 224 Mass. 475, 485,113 N. E. 408;McNeilly v. First Presbyterian Church, 243 Mass. 331, 338, 137 N. E. 691.

[2] These decisions have all been rendered with respect to some denomination of Christians. See, also, Silsby v. Barlow, 16 Gray, 329, 330;Weld v. May, 9 Cush. 181. Freedom to worship the Supreme Being ‘in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience’; ‘provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship,’ is secured by article 2 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of this commonwealth. By article 11 of the Amendments to the Constitution further provision is made for the security of religious freedom, concluding with the mandate that ‘all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.’ By article 46 of the Amendments, ‘no law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.’ These great guaranties of religious liberty and equality before the law of all religious are not confined to adherents of the Christian religion or to societies and corporations organized for the promotion of Christianity. They extend likewise to the adherents of the ancient religion whose sacred scriptures form a part of the Bible. We are of opinion that Jew as well as Christians are protected by these explicit declarations of religious equality. See in this connection Saltman v. Nesson, 201 Mass. 534, 88 N. E. 3; Bowman v. Secular Society, Ltd., 1917 A. C. 406, 448, 449, 450, 464, 471, 472; Dourne v. Keane, 1919 A. C. 815.

A public charitable corporation is not liable for the negligence of its officers or servants. That general principle is established by numerous of our adjudications beginning with McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 120 Mass. 432, 21 Am. Rep. 529, all reviewed at length in Roosen v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, 235 Mass. 66, 126 N. E. 392, 14 A. L. R. 563. It is not necessary to do more than refer to that discussion and decision. That principle has been followed and applied in Kidd v. Massachusetts Homeopathic Hospital, 237 Mass. 500, 130 N. E. 55;Foley v. Wesson Memorial Hospital, 246 Mass. 363, 141 N. E. 113;Young v. Worcester, 253 Mass. 481, 149 N. E. 204.

That principle and the reasoning on which it rests seem as applicable to a religious as to any other charity. No sound distinction in this particular can be made to the disadvantage of a charity established for the promotion of religion.

A distinction has been established as to the degree of duty owed by one who invites another to enter upon his premises solely for the business of the guest and without benefit to the inviter, and by one who invites another to come upon his premises for the business and benefit of the inviter, or of both. It has been held that one who for his own purposes goes upon the premises of the defendant, even though at the latter's invitation, cannot recover for ordinary negligence of the defendant, as, for example, one who attends a wake or a funeral. Hart v. Cole, 156 Mass. 475, 31 N. E. 644;Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426, 31 N. E. 128,32 Am. St. Rep. 463;Massaletti v. Fitzroy, 228 Mass. 487, 507, 508, 118 N. E. 168, L. R. A. 1918C, 264, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 1088. If this be treated as applicable to one who attends a service of religious worship in a church or temple open to the public, the plaintiff cannot recover, because such services are for the benefit of those present and not for the benefit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Sessions v. Thomas D. Dee Memorial Hospital Ass'n
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • April 25, 1938
    ... ... 102, 119 N.E. 686, L ... R. A. 1918F, 185; Glaser v. Congregation ... Kehillath Israel , 263 Mass. 435, 161 N.E. 619; ... ...
  • Crown Kosher Super Market of Mass., Inc. v. Gallagher
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • July 20, 1959
    ...these guarantees exist for all, whether Christian or non-Christian, is settled beyond doubt by the decision of Glaser v. Congregation Kehillath Israel, 263 Mass. 435, 161 N.E. 619. In that case, 263 Mass. at page 437, 161 N.E. at page 620, it was said: "These great guarantees of religious l......
  • Rhodes v. Millsaps College
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 4, 1937
    ... ... Hospital, 116 N. J. 118; Grawunder v. Beth Israel ... Hospital, etc., 272 N.Y.S. 171; Johnson v. Staten Island ... 500, ... 130 N.E. 55; Glaser v. Congregation Kehillath Israel, 161 ... N.E. 619 ... The ... ...
  • Barrett v. Brooks Hospital, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1959
    ...Memorial Hospital, 246 Mass. 363, 141 N.E. 113; Young v. City of Worcester, 253 Mass. 481, 149 N.E. 204; Glaser v. Congregation Kehillath Israel, 263 Mass. 435, 161 N.E. 619; Bearse v. New England Deaconess Hospital, 321 Mass. 750, 72 N.E.2d 743; Mastrangelo v. Maverick Dispensary, 330 Mass......
  • 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