Larkin v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 07 April 1880 |
| Citation | 128 Mass. 521 |
| Parties | Anne E. Larkin v. City of Boston |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in Windsor Street in Boston. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the jury returned a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.
Exceptions overruled.
G. W McConnell, for the plaintiff.
T. M Babson, for the defendant.
The St. of 1877, c. 234, makes great changes in the law as heretofore existing in relation to the public duty of keeping ways in repair, and the liabilities of those who fail in the performance of such duties. The particular change to which our attention is directed in this suit is as to the condition precedent to a right of action by an individual who suffers injury or damage by reason of such failure.
Section 3 of that act is: "Any person injured in the manner set forth in the preceding section shall within thirty days thereafter give notice to the county, town, place or persons by law obliged to keep said highway, town way, causeway or bridge in repair, of the time, place and cause of the said injury or damage, and if the said county, town, place or persons do not pay the amount thereof, he may within two years after the date of said injury or damage bring an action of tort against said county, town, place or persons, in the Superior Court, to recover the same."
The notice in this case, signed by the plaintiff's attorney on February 25, 1879, and sent to the mayor of the defendant city, was as follows: "Sir: I hereby notify you that on February 5, 1879, on Windsor Street, in said Boston, Mrs. Anne E. Larkin received injuries which were caused by a defect and want of repair in said street." The judge ruled that such notice was insufficient under the statute, and ordered a verdict for the defendant; and the correctness of that ruling is the question to be decided.
It will be observed that the notice is dated February 25, 1879, stating the time of the injury to have been February 5, 1879. The notice was therefore within the statute time. It states the day, without in any mode indicating the part of the day, whether before noon or afternoon, whether in the daytime or in the night-time. Whether any more particularity as to time is necessary, we are not called upon to inquire. It is possible that some injuries, under some circumstances, might require a more particular designation of time than others, and possibly time may, under special circumstances, be so involved in the cause of the injury as to require a more specific designation than would otherwise be necessary. We decide nothing as to the sufficiency of the notice in reference to time, and refer to the subject only to say that it has not been considered by us.
It is urged that the place is not sufficiently designated. The injury is stated to have occurred "on Windsor Street, in said Boston." The bill of exceptions finds that there are in Boston two streets named Windsor Street; that they are both in that part of Boston which was formerly Roxbury, and both within the same ward; that one of them, not that in which the injury was sustained, is a mile and a half long and the length of the other is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connor v. Salt Lake City
... ... as the law required. Law v. Fairfield, 46 Vt. 425; ... Rogers v. Shirley, 74 Me. 144; Larkin v ... Boston, 128 Mass. 521; Donnelly v. Fall River, ... 130 Mas. 115; Babcock v. Guilford, 47 Vt. 519; Sowle ... v. Tomah, 81 Wis. 349 ... ...
-
Harris v. City of Genoa
... ... Kenady v. Lawrence, 128 Mass. 318; Gay v. City ... of Cambridge, 128 Mass. 387; Larkin v. City of ... Boston, 128 Mass. 521." Later cases are Lyon v ... City of Cambridge, 136 Mass. 419; Lyons v. City ... [111 Neb. 95] of Cambridge, ... ...
-
City of Denver v. Barron
...at which the injury was received, but we are referred to none which compel us to hold the notice deficient in this particular. Larkin v. Boston, 128 Mass. 521; Weber v. Town Greenfield, 74 Wis. 234, 42 N.W. 101; Fopper v. Town of Wheatland, 59 Wis. 623, 18 N.W. 514. The date was accurately ......
-
Pendergast v. Town of Clinton
...v. Cambridge, Id. 387; Pub.St. c. 52, § 19. The sufficiency of the notice depends upon facts, circumstances, and conditions, (Larkin v. Boston, 128 Mass. 521;) and because thereof, and because at the trial the parties assumed this notice to be defective, and because the court ruled upon tha......