Miller v. City of North Adams

• Decision Date: 25 February 1903
• Citation: 66 N.E. 197,182 Mass. 569
• Parties: MILLER v. CITY OF NORTH ADAMS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

182 Mass. 569

66 N.E. 197

MILLER v. CITY OF NORTH ADAMS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

February 25, 1903

COUNSEL

Chas.

J. Parkhurst, Mark E. Couch, and S. G. Tenney, for plaintiff.

C. T Phelps and P.J. Ashe, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

This is an action for personal injuries caused by an alleged defect in a public highway in the defendant city. The plaintiff's horse broke through the roadway into a culver which ran across the road and the plaintiff was thrown from his carriage and received the injuries complained of. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and the case is here on exceptions taken by the defendant to the refusal of the court to rule a requested, and to the admission of certain evidence. The defendant had no actual notice of the defect before the accident, and the principal question is whether it had implied notice that is whether, in the exercise of the reasonable care and diligence which is required of cities and towns to guard against defects in the public ways, it should have discovered and remedied it. On this question it seems to us that the cases of Rochefort v. Attleborough, 154 Mass. 140, 27 N.E. 1013, 26 Am. St. Rep. 221, and Stoddard v. Winchester, 154 Mass. 149, 27 N.E. 1014 26 Am. St. Rep. 223, are decisive of this case. See, also Brummett v. Boston, 179 Mass. 26, 60 N.E. 388. In Stoddard v. Winchester, supra, it is said that: 'In order to hold a town responsible on the ground of implied notice of a defect in the road, there should be such a condition of things as fairly to indicate that there may at any time be danger in using the road. It is not necessary that roads should be built according to the highest standards of engineering; and the practical rule that must be adopted, in order to impose liability in such cases, is that the condition of the road must be such that danger may reasonably be apprehended at any time, and therefore ought to be guarded against. See Rochefort v. Attleborough, supra. The fact that a road is so constructed that it is not likely to keep in good condition for a great length of time will not impose liability on the town which is bound to keep it in repair unless the danger is so imminent that it can fairly be said to show a want of reasonable care and diligence to omit guarding against it at once.' When the case came up again (157 Mass. 567, 32 N.E. 948) it was held that there was evidence, which was not before the court the first time, which justified a finding that there was a defect within the principles thus laid down, and that the town had notice of it or might have had notice of it by proper care and diligence, the trench having been filled in in such a way as not to make it safe, and to leave it liable to become at any time a source of danger to...