Hoyt v. Woodbury

• Decision Date: 04 January 1909
• Citation: 200 Mass. 343,86 N.E. 772
• Parties: HOYT v. WOODBURY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

200 Mass. 343

86 N.E. 772

HOYT v. WOODBURY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

January 4, 1909

COUNSEL

Starr Parsons, H. Ashley Bowen, and C. D. C. Moore, for plaintiff.

Wm. H Niles and H. R. Mayo, for defendant.

OPINION

RUGG J.

This is an action of tort to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff from a fall on premises of the defendant under these circumstances: For the purpose of trading she visited the store of one Bauer, who was a tenant of the defendant, in a four-story block; the first story was occupied by two stores, between which was an entrance to the upper stories. The street in front of the block was at a considerable grade, Bauer's store being opposite the lower portion of the street. The front of the building was on the street line, but all the entrances were set back, that of Bauer's store about 10 feet, and that to the upper stories about 9 feet. The space between the street line (that is, between the line of the sidewalk adjacent to the building) and the entrances was paved by the defendant with alternate squares of black and white tiling. The space or passageway to Bauer's entrance was substantially level with the sidewalk, and in it stood, just inside the street line, a column about 1 foot square supporting the building. The passageway to the entrance to the upper stories was raised above the sidewalk and tiling leading to Bauer's store from 2 1/2 to 3 1/4 inches, and the line of separation between these two levels of tiling continued the diagonal line made by Bauer's show window to the sidewalk line. The plaintiff stumbled over this riser between the two levels of tiling as she was coming out of the store on a sunny afternoon.

Without discussing the plaintiff's due care or whether she had any greater right than Bauer, the tenant, would have had under similar circumstances, the ruling of the superior court for the defendant should be supported on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. He owned a lot of land on a slight hillside, and it abutted upon a street which descended the hill. He had a right to improve his real estate in any reasonable way. He chose to maintain upon it a block with two stores separated by an entrance to upper stories. The problem which confronted him in doing this was so to arrange the means of access to these three entrances as to adapt them to the varying grade of the adjacent...