Hathaway v. Chandler & Co.
| Citation | 118 N.E. 273,229 Mass. 92 |
| Parties | HATHAWAY v. CHANDLER & CO., Inc. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1918 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Wm. F. Dana, Judge.
Action by Bertha B. Hathaway against Chandler & Company, Incorporated. There was directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Charles F. Perkins and Harold C. Haskell, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Charles S. Knowles, of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff, as a customer of the defendant, was rightfully in its store by its invitation, and no contention is made that she was not in the exercise of due care when injured. The only question is whether there was any evidence which would warrant a finding that the defendant was negligent.
The plaintiff testified that as she was walking across the store with a friend her foot caught in a strip of matting upon the floor and she fell receiving the injuries complained of. She further testified that after she fell she saw the matting--
‘looped up * * * that the center of the loop was from 1 1/2 to 2 inches from the floor, and that about 12 inches in length of the edge of the rug was raised from the floor.’
The strip of matting was about 45 feet long, 4 feet wide, and a quarter of an inch thick, was green in color, and made of cocoanut fiber; there was evidence that it was of a kind in common and general use, and there was no evidence to the contrary.
The judge of the superior court rightly ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. Upon the evidence most favorable to her it seems plain that there was no negligence of the defendant. The case of Toland v. Paine Furniture Co., 179 Mass. 501, 61 N. E. 52, cited and relied on by the plaintiff, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In that case the plaintiff caught her foot and fell over a rubber mat in a dimly lighted room. There was evidence that the mat was of cheap material, was much worn and curled up at the edge where she tripped, and was nailed down on each side. In the case at bar the evidence showed that the store was well lighted, and it did not appear that the matting was worn, defective, or curled up; while the plaintiff testified that after she fell she noticed that for a space of about twelve inches the matting was raised at the center for from 1 1/2 to 2 inches from the floor, still there is no evidence whatever to show that it did not lie smoothly upon the floor up to the time the plaintiff caught...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lander v. Sears
...311, 162 A. 518; Scannell v. Mohican Market, 131 Me. 495, 160 A. 777. This principle is of general application. Hathaway v. Chandler & Co. Inc., 229 Mass. 92, 118 N.E. 273; Johnson v. Pulidy, 116 Conn. 443, 165 A. 355; S. S. Kresge Co. v. Fader, supra; 38 Am.Jur. 763, Par. 102. The propriet......
-
Batson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
...Pinney v. Hall, 156 Mass. 225, 30 N. E. 1016; Spickernagle v. Woolworth, 236 Pa. 496, 84 A. 909, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 132; Hathaway v. Chandler, 229 Mass. 92, 118 N. E. 273; Rosen-Steinsitz v. Wanamaker (Sup.) 154 N. Y. S. 262; Olson v. Whitthorne, 203 Cal. 206, 263 P. 518, 58 A. L. R. 129; Wal......
-
Judson v. American Ry. Express Co.
...77, 97 N. E. 624; 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 419;Norton v. Hudner, 213 Mass. 257, 100 N. E. 546,44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 79;Hathaway v. Chandler & Co., 229 Mass. 92, 118 N. E. 273;Zugbie v. J. R. Whipple Co., 230 Mass. 19, 119 N. E. 191;Downing v. Jordan Marsh Co., 234 Mass. 159, 125 N. E. 207. As the ......
-
Robitaille v. Netoco Cmty. Theatres of North Attleboro, Inc.
...N.E. 472;Walker v. Williamson, 205 Mass. 514, 91 N.E. 885;Williams v. Holbrook, 216 Mass. 239, 241, 103 N.E. 633;Hathaway v. Chandler & Co., Inc., 229 Mass. 92, 94, 118 N.E. 273;Harrington v. Border City Mfg. Co., 241 Mass. 170, 173, 132 N.E. 721, 18 A.L.R. 610;Biancucci v. Nigro, 247 Mass.......