Lowe v. Inhabitants of Clinton
| Decision Date | 16 October 1883 |
| Parties | Louisa A. Lowe v. Inhabitants of Clinton |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Worcester. Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by an alleged defect in a highway in the defendant town. After the former decision, reported 133 Mass. 526, the case was tried in the Superior Court, before Knowlton, J who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
On the night of May 9, 1879, the plaintiff, while walking on the east side of North Main Street in the defendant town, struck her foot against a pine stump, and was thrown down and injured.
The evidence tended to show tat for nearly forty years the greater portion of the foot travel along the highway in question had taken a defined path on the easterly side contiguous to the fence, and on a level with the wrought road; that in 1876, the road was cut down for some distance (about fifteen or eighteen inches at the place of the accident,) leaving the footpath at its former level; that, at the same time, the fence on the easterly side had been moved back about two feet; that there was grass on each side of the path, but the evidence was conflicting whether it extended one foot or two feet from the fence; that the stump against which the plaintiff struck her foot projected one and a half to two inches above the soil. The witnesses differed in locating this projection at from eighteen to thirty inches from the fence.
The case was submitted to the jury, with full instructions as to the liability of towns for injuries caused by defects or obstructions in and near to highways and footpaths along highways, and, among others, that the plaintiff could not recover unless the alleged defect was in the travelled path, and none of said instructions were excepted to; but the defendant asked the judge to rule that, if the obstruction complained of was in the grass, and out of the travelled path, the plaintiff could not recover, which instruction the judge declined to give.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
J. W. Corcoran, for the defendant.
W. S. B. Hopkins & J. Smith, for the plaintiff, were not called upon.
OPINION
The instruction requested by the defendant was given in substance by the presiding justice of the Superior Court, who instructed the jury that "the plaintiff could not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Mills
...446; Stone v. Attleborough, 140 Mass. 328, 4 N.E. 570; Stockwell v. Fitchburg, 110 Mass. 305; Sulliven v. Boston, 126 Mass. 540; Lowe v. Clinton, 136 Mass. 24; Alston Newton, 134 Mass. 507, 45 Am. Rep. 347; Augusta v. Tharpe, 113 Ga. 152, 38 S.E. 389; Temby v. Ishpeming, 140 Mich. 146, 103 ......
-
McDonald v. City of St. Paul
...street. The city is liable for an injury caused by obstructions so close to or connected with the highway as to endanger travel. Lowe v. Inhabitants, supra; Wheeler v. Town, supra; Fairgrieve v. City, Mo.App. 31; Foxworthy v. City, 31 Neb. 825. OPINION START, C.J. The plaintiff, on the even......
-
Morris v. Mills
...Stone v. Attleborough, 140 Mass. 328, 4 N. E. 570; Stockwell v. Fitch-burg, 110 Mass. 305; Sulliven v. Boston, 126 Mass. 540; Lowe v. Clinton, 136 Mass. 24; Alston v. Newton, 134 Mass. 507, 45 Am. Rep. 347; Augusta v. Tharpe, 113 Ga. 152, 38 S. E. 389; Temby v. Ishpeming, 140 Mich. 146, 103......
-
Moran v. Inhabitants of Palmer
... ... repair, even though no work has been done upon it to fit it ... for the use of pedestrians. Lowe v. Clinton, 136 ... Mass. 24; Aston v. Newton, 134 Mass. 507 ... The ... second and third requests were sufficiently covered by ... ...