Neff v. Town of Wellesley
| Decision Date | 28 February 1889 |
| Citation | 20 N.E. 111,148 Mass. 487 |
| Parties | NEFF v. TOWN OF WELLESLEY |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
C. Abbott, for plaintiff.
C.E Washburn, for defendant.
To determine whether the defendant town is liable for the negligence of Crawford in driving its team, we must answer two questions: First, was the business in which Crawford was employed such that engaging in it would subject a city or town to liability for negligence in conducting it? Secondly was he a servant of the town, or was he a representative of a board of public officers acting independently, merely in the performance of a public duty?
It is a general rule that a town is not liable for the negligence of its agents or servants in a matter in which it has no interest, and which has no direct or natural tendency to injure any individual in person or property, and which it has in charge solely in the performance of a public duty imposed upon it by law. Tindley v. Salem, 137 Mass. 172; Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344. Whether this rule should be held to apply to the use of a farm for no other purpose than the support of paupers who are a charge upon the town it is unnecessary to decide; for the jury have found that paupers whose support was chargeable to another town and to the commonwealth, were boarded for pay upon the defendant's farm, and that persons employed to work upon the highways were also boarded there, and that horses were kept there, principally for use in repairing the highways. When property is used or business is conducted by a town principally for public purposes, under the authority of the law, but incidentally and in part for profit, the town is liable for negligence in the management of it. Worden v. New Bedford, 131 Mass. 23; Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489; Tindley v. Salem, ubi supra.
This case clearly does not fall within the rule which we have stated. Nor can it be held that the use of the farm by the defendant was illegal, so as to exonerate the town from liability on account of it. It was not an appropriation of public money to a commercial enterprise conducted primarily for profit. The income received from the farm was apparently, incidental to the use of it in the support of paupers having a residence in the town, and in boarding horses and men employed upon the highways which the town maintained. A city or town may make any reasonable provision for the support of paupers, or for sustaining other public burdens imposed upon it, and for that purpose may manage a farm which produces more crops than are needed for the food of the paupers, and may sell or exchange the surplus. It may transact business outside of the authority expressly given it, if the business is incidental to the performance of its public duties. Overseers of the poor are public officers, who commonly act under the authority of the law, and not as agents of a town. But in some matters they may represent the town as its agents. City of New Bedford v. Taunton, 9 Allen, 207. They have the care and custody of the paupers in their respective cities and towns, and are to see that they are suitably relieved, supported, and employed; but the city or town is to direct the manner and...
To continue reading
Request your trial