Lynch v. Swan
| Decision Date | 24 February 1897 |
| Citation | 46 N.E. 51,167 Mass. 510 |
| Parties | LYNCH v. SWAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
The plaintiff, with her husband and family, lived in a tenement in a three-story six-tenement house on Sharon street, in Springfield. Through the middle of the house ran a hall, and the only entrance from the street into the house was by means of an uncovered flight of seven steps, or staircase, leading into the front door, opening into this hall. The said staircase and hall were used in common by all the tenants in the house. While walking up this staircase just before noon on October 1, 1894, the plaintiff was injured, as she claimed, by the breaking or giving away of one of the steps forming the staircase.
T.A Fitzgibbon and J.L. Doherty, for plaintiff.
Walter S. Robinson, for defendant.
There was evidence for the jury that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, and some evidence from which the jury might find that it was the defendant's duty towards her to take reasonable care that the steps should be kept in such a condition that they would not give way when the plaintiff used them in a proper manner, as a means of entering or leaving the house. The difficulty is in determining whether there was evidence that the defendant had failed to exercise such reasonable care. The fact that one of the steps broke under the weight of the plaintiff is some evidence that in fact this step was not strong enough, and the question is whether there was evidence that the defendant knew this, or ought to have known it. There is no sufficient evidence that the weakness of the step was so apparent to the plaintiff that she must be held to have assumed the risk. There is no evidence that the defendant knew that the step was not strong enough, and the question of law comes down to this: Was there evidence for the jury that he ought to have known it, or, in other words, would have known it if he had exercised reasonable care? There was evidence that the steps generally "were worn, and perhaps needed a little fixing." The broken step was in evidence before the jury, but there is no description of it in the report, and it was not produced before us, and we cannot tell what an inspection of it would disclose. The accident occurred on October 1, 1894, and there was evidence that the plaintiff with her husband and family, began to live in the house on January 20, 1894. There was evidence that some boys, during the summer of 1894, had broken the sheathing on the side of the flight of steps, and had slept underneath them, and that, as we understand the report, the plaintiff was injured most severely by reason of her leg falling upon one of the broken boards of the sheathing when the step broke and let her leg through. There is no evidence of any other change in the condition of the step which broke between January 20, 1894, and the time of the accident, except such as might naturally be expected to occur from use and the lapse of time. The second step from the botton got loose, and some nails were driven in it, but the accident occurred, not on this step, but on the second step from the top.
The contention of the defendant is that his duty was "only that of due care to keep the steps in such condition as they were in at the time of the letting of the tenement to the plaintiff or her husband," and that he "was not bound to make them better than they were at the time of the letting." This is true, if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial