Mulkern v. Eastern S.S. Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 November 1940 |
| Citation | 29 N.E.2d 919,307 Mass. 609 |
| Parties | MULKERN v. EASTERN S. S. LINES, Inc. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County.
Personal injury action by James A. Mulkern against the Eastern Steamship Lines, Inc. Verdict for defendant. On plaintiff's exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
D. A. Foley, for plaintiff.
A. J. Santry, for defendant.
The plaintiff seeks in this action to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained as a result of his slipping on the defendant's premises. There was a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff's only exception is to the following statement in the charge to the jury: This statement must be considered in the light of the evidence in the case, and of the charge as a whole, in which the judge referred to the duty of the defendant to the plaintiff, if he was an ‘invitee,’ to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. So considered the charge was sufficiently favorable to the plaintiff, in conformity to the principle that the duty owed by the owner of premises to an invitee or business visitor, in circumstances such as are disclosed by the evidence, would be performed by giving adequate warning of the dangerous condition of the premises, but that there is no duty even to warn if the dangerous condition is ‘obvious to any ordinarily intelligent person.’ McGuire v. Valley Arena, Inc., 299 Mass. 351, 352, 12 N.E.2d 808, 809, and cases cited. See, also, Kelley v. Goldberg, 288 Mass. 79, 81, 192 N.E. 513;Rynn v. Fox New England Theatres, Inc. 299 Mass. 258, 259, 260, 12 N.E.2d 728;Bannister v. Berkshire Street Railway, 301 Mass. 598, 601, 18 N.E.2d 342.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garner v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp., 380
...on the defendant to warn the plaintiff of a dangerous condition provided the dangerous condition is obvious. Mulkern v. Eastern S. S. Lines, 307 Mass. 609, 29 N.E.2d 919. ' See also Hunnewell v. Haskell, 1899, 174 Mass. 557, 55 N.E. 320. As to the failure of to provide handrails, under the ......
-
Little v. Wilson Oil Corp.
...491; Flynn v. Cities Service Refining Co., supra; Sterns v. Highland Hotel Co., 307 Mass. 90, 29 N.E.2d 721; Mulkern v. Eastern S. S. Lines, 307 Mass. 609, 29 N.E.2d 919. In Murchison v. Washington Terrace Apartments, 245 N.C. 72, 95 S.E.2d 133, 134, plaintiff occupied an apartment in an ar......