Goodwin v. City of Fall River
| Decision Date | 27 November 1917 |
| Citation | 228 Mass. 529,117 N.E. 796 |
| Parties | GOODWIN v. CITY OF FALL RIVER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; Lloyd E. White, Judge.
Action by John Goodwin against the City of Fall River. The court directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
J. W. Cummings, C. R. Cummings, and J. W. Nugent, all of Fall River, for plaintiff.
Geo. Grime, of Fall River, City Sol., for defendant.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by stepping into a hole in the sidewalk, while walking along South Main street, in the city of Fall River-a public highway which the defendant is bound to keep in repair so that it may be reasonably safe and convenient for travelers. The accident occurred on the evening of March 16, 1914, between 7 and 7:30 o'clock. The notice of the claim for injuries sustained was served upon the city of Fall River on April 18, 1914, 33 days after the accident. The question presented is, whether the physical or mental incapacity of the plaintiff was such that he could not give the notice himself, or by any ordinary means at his command procure the notice to be given on his behalf within thirty days of the accident. R. L. c. 51, §§ 20, 21; Saunders v. Boston, 167 Mass. 595, 46 N. E. 98;Barclay v. Boston, 167 Mass. 596, 46 N. E. 113.
The plaintiff's injury was a broken ankle, a Potts fracture. He testified that he lived in Pawtucket, R. I.; that he came to Fall River on the afternoon of the accident; that he had to borrow money to come to Fall River; that he was out of work at the time and was looking for a job; that when he was hurt he was walking along one of the streets in the southern part of the city, but did not know its name; that the night was dark; that you could hardly see your hand in front of you; that it was so dark he could not see where he was going; that he did not know the points of the compass in Fall River or in which direction he was going; that he was being taken by a Mr. Greenwood, whom he had met at 5 o'clock that afternoon, to a moving picture show; that on the way they were joined by several other men whom he did not know; that after the accident he went two or three blocks along to the moving picture show; that he stayed there 10 or 15 minutes; that his foot swelled up and burst his shoe lace; that he could not stand the pain; that he hobbled down the steps until he got to the street; that Greenwood took him on his back and carried him to his [Greenwood's] home, where he stayed that night; that Dr. Perron attended him that night; that the next morning he went to Pawtucket with Mr. Greenwood; that Dr. Dunbar sent him to a hospital in Providence, R. I., where he remained 8 days; that he then returned home and remained in the house until the evening of April 17; that on that evening he went to see a lawyer in Providence; that on April 18, he went to see a lawyer in Fall River, with his youngest sister; that he came with a crutch and stick and the plaster cast on his leg just the same as when he came out of the hospital; that he went to Mr. Cummings' office and at that time was not able to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kunkel v. City of St. Louis
...29 Ont. L. Rep. 116; McNulty v. City of Cambridge, 130 Mass. 275; May v. City of Boston, 150 Mass. 517, 23 N.E. 220; Goodwin v. Fall River, 228 Mass. 529, 117 N.E. 796. Ignorance of the law requiring service of notice can no excuse for failure to give notice. Giovinazzo v. Canadian Pacific ......
-
Mirick v. Galligan
...ice. See Perry v. Medeiros, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- (Mass.Adv.Sh. (1976) 621, 628--629), 343 N.E.2d 859 (1976). Goodwin v. Fall River, 228 Mass. 529, 533, 117 N.E. 796 (1917).3 'The Court orders that a verdict be entered for the defendant in this matter by direction for the reasons that th......
-
Hooge v. City of Milnor
...Here, too, counsel rely upon cases arising in other jurisdictions where the statutes are essentially different. In Goodwin v. City of Fall River, 228 Mass. 529, 117 N. E. 796, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had before it a statute which specifically provided that, if a person shou......
-
Jakobsen v. Massachusetts Port Authority
...rather than as something else. See, e. g., Dakin v. City of Somerville, 262 Mass. 514, 160 N.E. 260 (1928); Goodwin v. City of Fall River, 228 Mass. 529, 117 N.E. 796 (1917); Mason v. Inhabitants of Town of Winthrop, 196 Mass. 18, 81 N.E. 644 (1907); Stone v. Inhabitants of the Town of Attl......