Lyons v. City of Cambridge
| Decision Date | 04 April 1882 |
| Parties | Mary Lyons v. City of Cambridge |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Middlesex.
Exceptions overruled.
W. E. L. Dillaway, for the plaintiff.
J. W. Hammond, for the defendant.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in a highway in the defendant city. It appeared at the trial that the plaintiff neglected to give within thirty days the notice required by the St. of 1877, c. 234, § 3, of the time, place and cause of her injury. This being so, the burden of proof was upon her to show that, from physical or mental incapacity, it was impossible for her to give the notice within thirty days, either by herself or by some person in her behalf. Mitchell v. Worcester, 129 Mass. 525. Upon the bill of exceptions, it is clear that the plaintiff did not meet this burden. Her evidence shows that after the injury she was taken to her home, one of her daughters assisting her; that, while there, she told her husband about the accident and the place of it; that he went to see the place; that afterwards she was taken to the hospital; that she was of clear mind; and that the different members of her family visited her occasionally at the hospital during the thirty days which followed the accident. Though suffering from a broken limb and unable to leave her bed, there was no mental or physical incapacity, within the St. of 1877, c. 234, § 4, which prevented her from giving the city notice of her injury within thirty days, as she did within three months, while in the same mental and physical condition. This case cannot be distinguished from McNulty v. Cambridge, 130 Mass. 275, and the Superior Court rightly directed a verdict for the defendant.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kunkel v. City of St. Louis
...lawyer upon his request. Harris v. City of Genoa, 111 Neb. 91, 195 N.W. 953; Mitchell v. City of Worcester, 129 Mass. 525; Lyons v. City of Cambridge, 132 Mass. 534; Saunders v. City of Boston, 167 Mass. 595, 46 98; Townsend v. City of Boston, 232 Mass. 451, 122 N.E. 395; Ehrhardt v. Seattl......
-
Randolph v. City of Springfield
...although the time varies from thirty to ninety days. Hay v. City of Baraboo, 105 N.W. 660; Postel v. Seattle, 83 P. 1025; Lyons v. Cambridge, 132 Mass. 534; McNulty Cambridge, 130 Mass. 275. (3) Said Section 8182, requiring a notice to cities for claims of injuries received in a street is n......
-
Perry v. Medeiros
...consisting in part of ice thereon, this same rule was applied. Saunders v. Boston, 167 Mass. 595, 596, 46 N.E. 98 (1897); Lyons v. Cambridge, 132 Mass. 534, 535 (1882). Applying to this case the test prescribed by the language quoted above from the Goodwin case, the judge correctly ruled th......
-
Harris v. City of Genoa
... ... person, is a condition precedent to the right of action ... 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 ... ...