Nersiff v. Worcester Cnty. Inst. for Sav.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1928
• Citation: 162 N.E. 349,264 Mass. 228
• Parties: NERSIFF v. WORCESTER COUNTY INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

264 Mass. 228

162 N.E. 349

NERSIFF

v.WORCESTER COUNTY INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

June 28, 1928.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Worcester County; Webster Thayer, Judge.

Action by Lizzie Nersiff against the Worcester County Institution for Savings. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

J. Joseph MacCarthy, of Worcester, for plaintiff.

Daniel F. Gay, of Worcester, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

This is an action of tort for personal injuries. The defendant, at the close of the evidence, moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied and the jury, having returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the case is here on the defendant's exceptions.

It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff's carelessness contributed to her injury and that there was no evidence of the defendant's negligence. The jury would have been warranted in finding the following facts: The entrance to the defendant's banking house provided for the use of customers was through a revolving door. It consisted of four bronze wings with glass panels fastened to a central axis around which the wings revolved, and it was equipped with adjustable friction strips of rubber and felt, to prevent the door, when in use, from spinning and to exclude cold. The plaintiff went to the bank to make a deposit and, having deposited her money, started to go out through the door. While using the door in the ordinary was as a means of exit, a person sought to enter the bank by means of the opposite compartment and in so doing pushed the door so that it struck the plaintiff in the back causing the injuries for which damages are sought.

[1][2] There was evidence that the friction strips, if used long enough, would not come in contact with the sides of the door and that no repairs or readjustment had been made from 1921 to February 1, 1923, the date of the accident. It appeared in the evidence of one Morse, called as a witness by the plaintiff, that among other duties he was employed by the defendant to look after the friction strips and mechanism of the door and that when the strips were worn down so that the door got loose he would have new ones put on. It could be found that the friction strips had so deteriorated from lapse of time and constant use that they failed properly to connect with the frame of the door and that the defendant's employee who was charged with the duty of keeping the door and its...