McLeod v. Rawson

• Decision Date: 18 June 1913
• Parties: McLEOD v. RAWSON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

215 Mass. 257

102 N.E. 429

McLEOD v. RAWSON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 18, 1913

COUNSEL

Dana B Gove, Fredk. J. Daggett and Francis P. Garland, all of Boston, for plaintiff.

Guy A Ham and Walter F. Frederick, both of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

DE COURCY, J.

It was incumbent on the plaintiff to show that her injury was due to some undischarged duty that the defendant owed to her. The house in which the accident occurred was not owned or controlled by the defendant, but by Warren W. Rawson, her husband, since deceased; and the plaintiff was called to the premises by his physician. There was no invitation, express or implied, extended to her by the defendant, and no relation existed between them that imposed upon the defendant a duty of keeping the premises reasonably safe for the plaintiff. The cases cited, such as those involving the duty of a landlord to his tenants and persons on his premises in the tenant's right, and those of a shopkeeper to customers who visit him on business, are not in point. Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513, 25 N.E. 978, 9 L. R. A. 640, 23 Am. St. Rep. 846; Toland v Paine Furniture Co., 179 Mass. 501, 61 N.E. 52; Wills v. Taylor, 193 Mass. 113, 78 N.E. 774; McGowan v. Monahan, 199 Mass. 296, 85 N.E. 105, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 928, 127 Am. St. Rep. 501; Marston v. Reynolds, 211 Mass. 590, 98 N.E. 601.

But although the defendant was under no obligation, founded merely on the relation of the parties, to maintain a light that would enable the plaintiff to move about the upper hall in safety, yet if she promised the plaintiff to do so, and was negligent in the manner of performing that undertaking, she thereby became liable to the plaintiff, if the latter while relying on the promise was injured by the defendant's misfeasance. Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477, 7 Am. Rep. 548; Riley v. Lissner, 160 Mass. 330, 35 N.E. 1130; Buldra v. Henin, 212 Mass. 275, 98 N.E. 863; Wilkinson v. Coverdale, 1 Esp. 75; Hyde v. Moffat, 16 Vt. 271; Gregor v. Cady, 82 Me. 131, 19 A. 108, 17 Am. St. Rep. 466.

The case is here on a report. On the testimony of the plaintiff, the jury could find that on the night before the accident, during a conversation with the defendant with reference to the electric light at the foot of the back stairs, she said, among other things, 'You must not put out that light; you must leave that light burning at night always, while I am taking care of Mr. Rawson. * * * I have to be up and down these stairs, and I am absolutely dependent upon that light going into the little room, or I may fall down these stairs--the two passages are so near together;' that Mrs. Rawson replied, 'All right then, I will leave it burning.' They could further find that, soon after the accident, the defendant said: 'You fell down those stairs, and I am so sorry I put out that light. What did I put out that light for?'

It was necessary for the plaintiff to use the hall during the night in going to and from the bathroom; and opposite the door of the bathroom, and only three feet from the opening of the back stairs, was the door of the anteroom, which was connected with the room of the patient. The plaintiff testified that she depended absolutely upon the reflection of the light at the foot of the back stairs to...