Newell v. William Filene's Sons Co.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1937 |
| Citation | 6 N.E.2d 820,296 Mass. 489 |
| Parties | NEWELL v. WILLIAM FILENE'S SONS CO. (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frank J. Donahue, Judge.
Actions of tort by Mary E. Newell and by Robert M. Newell against William Filene's Sons Company, which were tried together. Verdicts for the defendant, and the plaintiffs bring exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
C. S. Walkup, Jr., of Boston, for plaintiffs.
W. G. Reed, of Boston, for defendant.
There was evidence warranting the finding that the female plaintiff, a prospective customer, while going down a stairway in the defendant's store, slipped on a black substance on the stairs, fell and was injured. She testified that a man who assisted her after the fall took from the heel of her shoe ‘half an orange’ which she described as ‘black’ ‘dirty’ and ‘gritty’ and as having on it ‘heel marks, like a spike heel.’ She wore shoes with broad heels. The record contains no reference to any other testimony than that given by her which is above summarized.
Actions brought by her and by her husband, who sought consequential damages, were tried together in the superior court before a jury. By direction of the trial judge verdicts were returned for the defendant.
There was nothing tending to show that the piece of orange came upon the stairway by the act of an employee of the defendant, or that it had been seen there by any such employee. Therefore a breach of the defendant's duty to keep its premises reasonably safe for use by its customers could not be established unless there was evidence warranting the conclusion that the substance in question had been on the stairs for so long a period of time that the defendant's employees ought reasonably to have learned of its presence.
It does not appear that the piece of orange had been seen by anyone prior to the fall of the female plaintiff (compare White v. Mugar, 280 Mass. 73, 181 N.E. 725), or that the stairway was in view of the defendant's employees as they did their work (compare Foley v. F. W. Woolworth Co. [Mass.] 199 N.E. 739), or under what circumstances the substance which caused the fall came to be upon the stairs (compare Fournier v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 286 Mass. 7, 189 N.E 574, 92 A.L.R. 610). The plaintiffs contend, as they must in order to prevail, that merely from the appearance of the piece of orange as described in the testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hennessey v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 04-P-1005.
...the plaintiff's entire case. See, e.g., Goddard v. Boston & Me. R.R., 179 Mass. 52, 52, 60 N.E. 486 (1901); Newell v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co., 296 Mass. 489, 490, 6 N.E.2d 820 (1937); Wyman v. McLellan Stores Co., 315 Mass. 117, 118, 51 N.E.2d 969 (1943), in addition to the cases previously c......
-
Fitzgerald v. Cain's Lobster House, Inc.
...conduct the defendant was responsible. Rosenthal v. Central Garage of Lynn, Inc., 279 Mass. 574, 181 N.E. 660; Newell v. William Filene's Sons Co., 296 Mass. 489, 6 N.E.2d 820; Uchman v. Polish National Home, Inc., 330 Mass. 563, 116 N.E.2d 145 nor that it was on the floor for such a length......
-
Chastain v. Hotel Commander, Inc.
...been on the step for such a length of time that it should have been discovered and removed by the defendant. Newell v. William Filene's Sons Co., 296 Mass. 489, 490, 6 N.E.2d 820; Compare Gallagher v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 332 Mass. 560, 563, 126 N.E.2d It is true that the Hotel employed a man......
-
Kelleher v. Dini's, Inc.
...stepped on was of little significance. See Renzi v. Boston Elevated Railway Co., 293 Mass. 228, 199 N.E. 738; Newell v. Wm. Filene's Sons Co., 296 Mass. 489, 490, 6 N.E.2d 820. The evidence was insufficient to warrant a finding that it had been there for any considerable time, or that, what......