Hutchins v. Inhabitants of Littleton
| Decision Date | 05 March 1878 |
| Citation | 124 Mass. 289 |
| Parties | Isaiah Hutchins v. Inhabitants of Littleton |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Middlesex. Tort for personal injuries occasioned by a defect in a high-way which the defendant town was bound to keep in repair. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J who, after a verdict for the plaintiff, allowed a bill of exceptions, so much of which as is necessary to the understanding of the point decided appears in the opinion.
Exceptions sustained.
G. A Somerby & D. S. Richardson, for the defendant.
T. H. Sweetser, (F. A. Worcester with him,) for the plaintiff.
At the trial, the evidence tended to show that, four days prior to the injury to the plaintiff, the horse of one More had broken through the surface of the highway, and had made by his hoof a hole, which was a defect; that the defendant's surveyor of highways had repaired it by putting in stones and gravel, and that, by the action of the elements, the same hole was reopened, or another hole made in the same place, into which the plaintiff's horse stepped, and thus caused the plaintiff's injury.
The court, among other things, instructed the jury that "if a defect in a highway, from any cause, is developed and repaired, and from its character, or from its not having been thoroughly and sufficiently repaired, by the ordinary action of the elements is again developed in its former place, or a new defect is developed in another place, but connected with the former defect, either as a part of it or involved in it, or directly related to or affected by it, and injury to a traveller is caused by the former defect insufficiently repaired, or by the later defect so related to or connected with the former defect, the town required to maintain such highway would be responsible for such injury, and would have had notice of such former and of such later defects. if either of such defects was known to the selectmen or surveyor of highways of such town, or if the first form of the defect, afterwards insufficiently repaired, and from that cause developing again to a traveller's injury, was in existence twenty-four hours before such injury, or was known to such town."
To entitle him to recover, the plaintiff was required to prove that he was injured by a defect which had existed for twenty- four hours or was known to the town. It was not enough that a former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Squires v. City of Chillicothe
...its mayor. And constructive notice, the law presumes notice after a reasonable length of time. Brady v. Lowell, 3 Cush. 121; Hutchison v. Littleton, 124 Mass. 289; Market v. City of St. Louis, 56 Mo. 189; v. City of Richmond, 75 Mo. 437. (4) Instructions six and seven asked by appellant are......
-
Baker v. City of South St. Paul
...Nothdurft v. City of Lincoln, 66 Neb. 430, 92 N.W. 628, 96 N.W. 163; Strang v. City of Kenosha, 174 Wis. 480, 182 N.W. 741; Hutchins v. Littleton, 124 Mass. 289; 43 C.J. 1054, as to necessity for further notice of a new defect after sufficient repairs have once been made so as to make the s......
-
Mason v. Inhabitants of Town of Winthrop
... ... The tenth request ignored these circumstances ... as immaterial, under the decisions in Monies v ... Lynn, 121 Mass. 442, 444, and Hutchins v ... Littleton, 124 Mass. 289. But those cases were decided ... under Gen. St. 1860, c. 44, § 32, and as point out in ... Post v. Boston, 141 ... ...
-
Post v. City of Boston
...of the same case it was declared that a liability to become defective is not in itself a defect. 124 Mass. 171. See, also, Hutchins v. Littleton, 124 Mass. 289. Under that statute, and earlier ones to the same effect, had often been held that the liability of the town became absolute if the......