Mellen v. Morrill
| Decision Date | 22 May 1879 |
| Citation | 126 Mass. 545 |
| Parties | Sophia E. Mellen v. George H. Morrill |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Norfolk. Tort. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the plaintiff offered to prove the following facts:
In February 1877, the defendant was the owner of a dwelling-house in Norwood, which he had let by parol to a tenant, who occupied it for a dwelling-house and market. The walk or path leading from the street to the front door of the building was unsafe and dangerous, and was in that condition prior to the letting of the building, and its condition was known to the defendant. The plaintiff in the night-time while in the exercise of due care, was passing along this path or walk, for the purpose of calling upon the tenant and settling an account with him, when, in consequence of the dangerous or unsafe condition of the walk, she was precipitated down an embankment about eight feet, and received the injuries complained of.
The judge, by consent of parties, before verdict, reported the case for the determination of this court. If, upon proof of the above facts, it would be competent for the jury to find for the plaintiff, the case was to stand for trial otherwise, judgment was to be entered for the defendant.
Judgment for the defendant.
J. E. Carpenter, for the plaintiff.
A. B. Wentworth, for the defendant.
It appears that the plaintiff was injured by falling down an embankment adjoining a walk leading from the street to the door of a building owned by the defendant but leased to a tenant. The accident happened in the night-time. There was no defect in the walk itself. It was rendered dangerous, if at all, by the want of a railing, or by the absence of a light or some other warning. The plaintiff can hold the defendant liable only upon the ground that he was guilty of negligence towards her.
The occupier of a building, who negligently permits the building or the access to it to be in an unsafe condition, is liable for an injury occasioned thereby to a person whom he by an invitation, express or implied, induces to enter upon it. He is liable because it is negligence in him to invite a person to enter upon a dangerous place without proper warning. Sweeny v. Old Colony Railroad, 10 Allen 368. Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co. 99 Mass. 216. But the defendant was not the occupier of the land, and did not, expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Chase Hotel Co.
...as to persons within those premises and be it latent or patent. See citations under Point I and in respondent's (first) Brief; Mellon v. Morrell, 126 Mass. 545; Harte v. Jones, 287 Pa. 37; Burdick v. Cheodle, 26 Ohio St. SUTTON, C. This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries ......
-
Bender v. Weber
...with the same right of possession in the tenant as in the premises. This rule is now beyond controversy." Take another case, Mellen v. Morrill, 126 Mass. 545: appears that the plaintiff was injured by falling down an embankment adjoining a walk leading from the street to the door of a build......
-
Printy v. Reimbold
...Conn. 528 (34 A. 491); DeTarr v. Ferd. Heim Brewing Co., 62 Kan. 188 (61 P. 689); Tomle v. Hampton, 129 Ill. 379 (21 N.E. 800); Mellen v. Morrill, 126 Mass. 545; v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578 (25 N.E. 22); Crogan v. Schiele, 53 Conn. 186 (1 A. 899); Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Wheeler, 31 Minn. 121 (1......
-
Bender v. Weber
...the same right of possession in the tenant as in the premises. This rule is now beyond controversy." Take another case, Mellen v. Morrill, 126 Mass. 545, 30 Am. Rep. 695: "It appears that the plaintiff was injured by falling down an embankment adjoining a walk leading from the street to the......