Little v. City of Holyoke
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | HAMMOND |
| Citation | 177 Mass. 114,58 N.E. 170 |
| Parties | LITTLE v. CITY OF HOLYOKE. |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1900 |
LITTLE
v.
CITY OF HOLYOKE.
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.
Oct. 19, 1900.
Exceptions from superior court, Hampden county.
Action by Elsie M. Little, by next friend, against the city of Holyoke. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
[177 Mass. 115]A. L. Green and F. F. Bennett, for plaintiff.
N. P. Avery, for defendant.
HAMMOND, J.
This is an action of tort for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in descending a flight of stairs. At the trial the defendant presented 10 requests for instructions. In the argument before us it insists only upon the following, namely: (1) On all the evidence and the pleadings the plaintiff cannot recover, and the jury must find for the defendant. (2) There is no sufficient evidence that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, and the plaintiff cannot recover. (3) There is no sufficient evidence that the defendant was negligent, and the plaintiff cannot recover. It was agreed at the trial that the defendant let this hall to the Woman's Relief Corps for the day and night in question, for hire, and furnished the lights; that the gallery was a part of the hall; and that the city furnished light, and a janitor to take care of the hall. Without reciting the evidence in detail, it is sufficient to say we have examined it, and think that, in addition to the facts agreed upon as above stated, it would warrant a finding
[58 N.E. 171]
that the defendant occasionally let the large hall in the second story of the city hall building for public gatherings, and received pay [177 Mass. 116]therefor; that on the evening in question the hall was let for the purpose of an entertainment to be given by the lessee; that it was understood as a part of the bargain that the defendant should light and keep properly lighted the entry and stairs leading to the hall and to the gallery of the same; that the stairs leading to the gallery were not kept properly lighted, but that one at least of the lights was negligently allowed to go out, so that the winding part of the stairs was in comparative darkness; that the descent of the stairs under these circumstances was attended with danger; that the plaintiff, who had been in the gallery at the entertainment, in attempting to descend the stairs, fell thereon, and was injured; that she was at the time in the exercise of due care, and that the accident was due to the negligent failure of the defendant to keep the stairs properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wash. State Stadium Pfd v. Huber, Hunt, No. 81029-0.
...256 N.W.2d 240, 243-44 (1977); Sawaya v. Tucson High Sch. Dist. No. 1, 78 Ariz. 389, 281 P.2d 105, 108 (1955); Little v. City of Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 58 N.E. 170, 170-71 (1900). ¶ 59 Ohio statutes differentiate between operations of public parks, swimming pools, zoos, and libraries as go......
-
Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Fleming, No. 10853.
...299, and Notes 29 A.L.R. 863, 874, and 99 A.L.R. 686, 694; McQuillin, Municipal Corps., 2nd Ed., 1178-1180, sec. 2486; Little v. Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 58 N.E. 170, 52 L.R.A. 417; Buchanan v. Town of Barre, 66 Vt. 129, 28 A. 878, 23 L.R.A. 488, 44 Am.St.Rep. (11) In further support of thes......
-
Chaffee v. Inhabitants of Town of Oxford
...a profit,’ used it in the maintenance and operation of the farm, and sold some of the farm products ‘at a profit.’ See Little v. Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 117, 58 N.E. 170,52 L.R.A. 417. In other words, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant [33 N.E.2d 302]is liable because some of the res......
-
Haley v. City Of Boston
...for the negligence of its servants or agents who are engaged therein. Duggan v. Peabody, 187 Mass. 349, 73 N. E. 206;Little v. Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 58 N. E. 170,52 L. R. A. 417;D'Amico v. Boston, 176 Mass. 599, 58 N. E. 158;Lynch v. Springfield, 174 Mass. 430, 54 N. E. 871. So, too, if i......
-
Wash. State Stadium Pfd v. Huber, Hunt, No. 81029-0.
...256 N.W.2d 240, 243-44 (1977); Sawaya v. Tucson High Sch. Dist. No. 1, 78 Ariz. 389, 281 P.2d 105, 108 (1955); Little v. City of Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 58 N.E. 170, 170-71 (1900). ¶ 59 Ohio statutes differentiate between operations of public parks, swimming pools, zoos, and libraries as go......
-
Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Fleming, No. 10853.
...299, and Notes 29 A.L.R. 863, 874, and 99 A.L.R. 686, 694; McQuillin, Municipal Corps., 2nd Ed., 1178-1180, sec. 2486; Little v. Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 58 N.E. 170, 52 L.R.A. 417; Buchanan v. Town of Barre, 66 Vt. 129, 28 A. 878, 23 L.R.A. 488, 44 Am.St.Rep. (11) In further support of thes......
-
Chaffee v. Inhabitants of Town of Oxford
...a profit,’ used it in the maintenance and operation of the farm, and sold some of the farm products ‘at a profit.’ See Little v. Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 117, 58 N.E. 170,52 L.R.A. 417. In other words, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant [33 N.E.2d 302]is liable because some of the res......
-
Haley v. City Of Boston
...for the negligence of its servants or agents who are engaged therein. Duggan v. Peabody, 187 Mass. 349, 73 N. E. 206;Little v. Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 58 N. E. 170,52 L. R. A. 417;D'Amico v. Boston, 176 Mass. 599, 58 N. E. 158;Lynch v. Springfield, 174 Mass. 430, 54 N. E. 871. So, too, if i......