Hamilton v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 11 March 1907 |
| Citation | 80 N.E. 592,195 Mass. 68 |
| Parties | HAMILTON v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Geo H. Mellen and Albt. S. Hutchinson, for plaintiff.
Chas E. Hellier and Wm. P. Everts, for defendant.
The plaintiff was route foreman for an ice company, and was assisting one of the drivers of the ice wagons in delivering ice. At 52 Pearl street, on the corner of Wendell street, one Saunders kept a restaurant on the ground floor of the building. His premises were divided by a partition about 15 feet from the rear, so as to leave a main room in front, with tables for guests, and a kitchen in the rear. The main entrance was in front, from Pearl street, and from Wendell street a covered passageway led into the building through a thick brick wall to a freight elevator which was used by the tenants of the building. Across the elevator was a door leading into the kitchen of the restaurant. Lewis, the driver of the ice wagon, had delivered ice through the passageway, across the elevator, into the refrigerator in the kitchen of the restaurant, nearly every day for two months before the accident. On the day of the accident the plaintiff, who had made a delivery there the day before, was carrying a basket of pitcher ice with a square chunk of ice on the top of it, the whole weighing about 65 pounds, into the restaurant. The only way to carry the basket was to take hold of the two handles and carry it in front of him. The top of the ice came a few inches below his chin. There was evidence that the place was rather dark, and that, supposing that the platform of the elevator was there, he walked into the elevator well and was injured. The elevator had been moved up, and the gates, which should have fallen into place automatically and protected the elevator, were not in place and there was nothing to obstruct his passage or to show that the way was not safe, unless one, by looking intently, might discover that there was an opening in the floor.
It was proved and not disputed that the defendant, the owner of the building, retained control of the elevator, and was responsible for its condition to those who were entitled to use it or pass over it.
It is a question not free from difficulty whether there was evidence that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. He testified that, 'They always drove round to the rear on Wendell street and went in through the passageway.' Upon the evidence he well might believe, and presumably did believe, that this was a safe way to deliver ice, unless there was something to indicate that the elevator was up. Naturally he would expect that there would be gates or other barriers to keep people from walking into the elevator well if the platform of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial