Goldman v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 03 February 1931 |
| Parties | GOLDMAN v. CITY OF BOSTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division; John G. Brackett, Judge.
Action by George Goldman against the City of Boston. From an order of the Appellate Division, directing judgment for the defendant after the trial judge had found for the plaintiff, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.E. Miller and S. Miller, both of Boston, for appellant.
J. D. Rainey, Asst. Corporation Counsel, of Boston, for appellee.
The plaintiff seeks to recover for damage to his real estate caused in November, 1927, by the breaking of a water pipe belonging to the defendant.
The plaintiff testified that the cellar of his home was flooded by water coming from a water main. There was evidence that in November, 1927, a break was discovered in the pipe, triangular in shape, three feet wide at the bell end of the pipe and ‘running from that width down to nothing’; that the pipe was laid in 1898; that in 1911 a break occurred in the same section of the pipe, one thousand feet distant from the break of 1927; that the part of the pipe broken in 1911 was laid on a rock, ‘which would produce a break that would not occur in gravelly soil’; that the section of the pipe broken in 1927 was laid in good gravel soil; and that a pipe resting on a rock will break at the resting point.
The defendant asked for the ruling that there was no evidence of negligence. The trial judge refused this request and found for the plaintiff. In the Appellate Division judgment was entered for the defendant; the plaintiff appealed.
[2] It was essential for the plaintiff to recover that some negligence on the part of the defendant should be shown in the laying of the water main or in its care and maintenance. Nothing appears to show the ordinary life of the pipe, or the frost levels in the vicinity. In fact there was no evidence of negligence. No inference indicating negligence of the defendant can be drawn from the break of 1911; that break, it could have been found, happened because the pipe rested on a rock. The soil where the break in question happened was gravel.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable. The water main may have settled and cracked from other causes than the defendant's negligence in laying the pipe or in caring for it. The act itself is evidence of negligence ‘when the direct cause of the accident, and so much of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
C. C. Anderson Stores Co. v. Boise Water Corp.
...cases which would support or tend to support a contrary conclusion: Martin v. Brown, 56 Idaho 379, 54 P.2d 1157; Goldman v. City of Boston, 274 Mass. 329, 174 N.E. 686; Grace & Co. v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir.) 278 F.2d The conclusion we reach in this case is also in harmony with the du......
-
Lober v. Kansas City
...Cal. App. 327, 295 P. 540; Wigal v. City of Parkersburg, 74 W. Va. 25, 81 S. E. 554, 556, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 465; Goldman v. City of Boston, 274 Mass. 329, 174 N. E. 686. Returning to the point as to whether the negligent act of the street cleaner in connection with the closing of the hydr......
-
Adam Hat Stores, Inc. v. Kansas City
...res ipsa loquitur doctrine applicable on a mere showing that the main fractured. This I deem to be the holding of Goldman v. City of Boston, 274 Mass. 329, 174 N.E. 686, 687, with which I Since the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is a part of the law of evidence, the need for invoking it has ten......
-
IM of Atlantic City v. District of Columbia
...states, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Michigan the doctrine does not appear to be available; see, e. g., Goldman v. City of Boston, 274 Mass. 329, 174 N.E. 686 (1931); Fanning v. Montclair, 81 N.J.Super. 481, 196 A.2d 18 (1963); A. J. Brown & Son, Inc. v. Grand Rapids, 265 Mich. 46......