Mansell v. Hands

• Decision Date: 05 March 1920
• Citation: 235 Mass. 253,126 N.E. 391
• Parties: MANSELL v. HANDS (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

235 Mass. 253

126 N.E. 391

MANSELL

v.HANDS (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 5, 1920.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Lloyd E. White, Judge.

Actions of tort for injuries through the explosion of a hot water radiator, brought by May B. Mansell against Anna C. Hands, individually and as executrix. Verdicts were directed for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.

James F. Cavanagh and Philip A. Hendrick, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

Ropes, Gray, Boyden & Perkins, of Boston (Albert A. Schaefer, of Boston, of counsel), for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

While it is clear that the testator never having been the lessor, but acted only in making repairs and in collection of rent as agent of his wife who owned and leased the premises, and the plaintiff fails to show any cause of action in the first suit, no question of the absence of common liability is raised, and we shall accordingly refer to Anna C. Hands as the defendant. The plaintiff is a tenant at will, and the jury would have been warranted in finding that at the date of rental, the heating apparatus consisted of a hot air furnance inside of which was a hot water coil connecting with two radiators, one in the kitchen, and one in the chamber above the dining room in the back part of the house, and that 6 months after her accupancy began and nearly 22 years after the system was installed the radiator in the chamber exploded causing personal injuries for which she seeks damages. It also could have been found on the evidence of the plaintiff's expert, that the system was defective because no expansion tank had been provided, nor any ‘release’ nor ‘expansion’ valve which would have been the equivalent of a tank. But notwithstanding these omissions it was his opinion which the jury could have followed, that the supply pipe connecting the coil with the street water main would have been sufficient to take care of the expansion if a check value had no been improperly placed in the pipe, the closing of which created an excessive pressure causing the explosion. The exact location of the check value, however, does not appear, nor is there any direct evidence whether it was necessary in operating the coil to open the value for the admission of the required supply of water. It is shown that when the premises were let the apparatus which was looked over by the plaintiff appeared to be in good working order, and that until the explosion...