Grebenstein v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Co.
| Decision Date | 19 May 1911 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | GREBENSTEIN v. STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CO. |
GREBENSTEIN
v.
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CO.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.
May 19, 1911.
Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; William Cushing Wait, Judge.
Action by William F. Grebenstein against the Stone & Webster Engineering Company. On report from the superior court. Judgment directed for defendant.
D. H. Coakley and H. D. Moore, for plaintiff.
Peabody, [209 Mass. 198]Arnold, Batchelder & Luther, for defendant.
[209 Mass. 196]MORTON, J.
This case was before this court in 205 Mass. 431, 91 N. E. 411, where the defendant's exceptions were sustained, and it was left to the superior court to decide whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend his declaration by substituting, for the count at common law on which the case was tried, counts under R. L. c. 106, § 71, the act which was in force at the time of the injury complained of. The superior court allowed the plaintiff to amend by substituting for the count at common law a count under R. L. c. 106, for negligent super-intendence, and the case came on for trial on the declaration as thus amended. The presiding justice ruled, subject to the defendant's objection and exception, that there was evidence of negligent superintendence, and by agreement of the parties submitted certain questions to the jury which they answered in favor of the plaintiff and assessed damages in the sum of $4,000. The presiding justice was, however, of opinion that the notice was insufficient and directed a verdict for the defendant and reported the case to this court. If the ruling in regard to the notice was wrong and the facts reported would justify a submission of the case to the jury, then judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff for $4,000. Otherwise [209 Mass. 197]judgment is to be entered on the verdict for the defendant.
[1] We think that the ruling was right. The notice required by the statute is a condition precedent to a right of action. Any right of action which the plaintiff otherwise would have had is lost if he fails to give a sufficient notice. The notice required must be in writing, signed by the person injured or some one in his behalf, and must be given to the employer within 60 days, and must contain a statement of the time, place and cause of the injury.
[2] The notice relied on in this case, omitting the letter head, is as follows:
‘November 5, 1907.
‘Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, No. 147 Milk Street, Boston, Mass.-Gentlemen: William F...
To continue reading
Request your trial