Hitchcock v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 26 February 1909 |
| Citation | 87 N.E. 470,201 Mass. 299 |
| Parties | HITCHCOCK v. CITY OF BOSTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Edwin
C. Jenney, for plaintiff.
John D McLaughlin, for defendant.
Rev Laws, c. 51, § 19, is as follows: 'A county, city or town shall not be liable for an injury or damage sustained upon a way, or causeway, or bridge, by reason of snow or ice thereon, if the place at which the injury or damage was sustained was at the time of the accident otherwise reasonably safe and convenient for travelers.'
The plaintiff's action was brought to enforce the statutory liability of cities and towns for defects in their streets or highways. The injury to the plaintiff was caused by two large piles of snow on the street, one on each side of the traveled path, one built to represent an Eskimo house and the other to represent a fort. Both of these were strongly built and somewhat coated with ice. The plaintiff's horse was frightened and shied, bringing the runner of the sleigh upon one of these obstructions in such a way as to throw the horse down and injure the plaintiff. There was no evidence of any defect in the street other than these piles of snow.
The liability which the plaintiff seeks to enforce is purely statutory. In some jurisdictions there is no liability of a city or town for an accident caused by a defect in a street. For reasons satisfactory to the Legislature, the general liability for defects in the ways in Massachusetts does not extend to injuries resulting from snow or ice in a street. The present is an extreme case of a very dangerous condition of a street, resulting entirely from snow and ice previously manipulated by human agency. Doubtless these great piles, in such close proximity to each other and to the traveled part of the way, constituted a nuisance. Probably the person or persons who created the nuisance would be liable for an injury directly resulting from it. The liability or nonliability of the city depends upon whether an exception to the language of the section can be read into the statute.
This provision has been construed very broadly. It applies to every case where the dangerous condition of the street is caused entirely by snow or ice, Hadden v Somerville, 197 Mass. 480, 83 N.E. 1105; Newton v. Worcester, 174 Mass. 181, 54 N.E. 521; Id., 169 Mass. 516, 48 N.E. 274; Bailey v. Cambridge, 174 Mass. 188, 54 N.E. 523. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial