Murphy v. The Alpine Press, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1935
• Citation: 196 N.E. 841,291 Mass. 239
• Parties: MURPHY v. THE ALPINE PRESS, Inc.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

291 Mass. 239

196 N.E. 841

MURPHY v. THE ALPINE PRESS, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 26, 1935

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Goldberg Judge.

Action by William M. Murphy against The Alpine Press, Inc. Defendant's motion to enter a verdict for defendant after the recording, with leave reserved, of a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $12,900, was granted, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

F. J Carney and W. J. Killion, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

J. F. Cavanagh, of Boston, for defendant.

QUA Justice.

The defendant as lessee under a written lease occupied the sixth or top floor of a building on Congress street, Boston, known as the Oliver Ditson building. The plaintiff, an employee of one Hill, who was engaged in the trucking business, came to the defendant's premises for the purpose of getting some bundles of paper to be delivered for the defendant. The paper was to be lowered to the street level by means of a freight elevator. While the plaintiff at the sixth floor was reaching out over the elevator shaft to manipulate the cable by which the elevator could be brought up, the bar of the wooden gate against which he was leaning broke, and he was precipitated down the shaft suffering personal injuries. This action is brought for alleged negligence in the maintenance or control of the gate.

The question arises at the outset whether the defendant tenant owed any duty to the plaintiff with reference to the condition of the gate. Neither party offered the lease in evidence. Oral testimony from witnesses called by the plaintiff tended to show the following: The gate was ‘ a single bar two-legged gate.’ It ‘ was operated automatically with the elevator,’ so that when the elevator came to the six floor it raised the gate and when the elevator went down the gate dropped into place by gravity. There were various tenants on the different floors who used the elevator. Repairs on the elevator and elevator shaft have been made on a number of occasions over a period of two years on the order of an engineer, ‘ who is connected with the building’ or of agents for the owners. The engineer ‘ O. K.'d’ the bills and sent them to the agents who ‘ settled’ for them.

A witness called by the defendant testified that ‘ he is employed * * * by the Boston Safe Deposit Company representing the Ditson Estate * * * he is engineer of the steam plant * * * and has the general care of the building, the elevators included’ ; that the elevators were used in common by various tenants, each tenant operating them himself; that he had charge of making repairs on the elevators; that as engineer he ordered gates installed in the building whenever it was necessary and that he could not tell who would install the gate on the sixth floor in the ordinary course. In answer to interrogatories the defendant stated that it occupied the ‘ Sixth floor.’

We discover nothing in this which would justify a jury in drawing the inference that the gate which broke was a part of the premises leased to or in the control of the defendant. Even the evidence introduced by the plaintiff tends to show that the gate was a part of the mechanism of the elevator, and that control of the elevator and shaft remained in the owners of the building. Evidence that the defendant occupied the sixth floor under a lease does not show that the elevator gate on that floor was included in the demised premises. In Follins v. Dill, 221 Mass. 93, at page 98, 108 N.E. 929, 931, this court said: ‘ The gates were so connected with the elevator that express and definite stipulation would be required to place responsibility for their care upon a tenant when the elevators...