Norton v. Chandler & Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1915 |
| Citation | 221 Mass. 99,108 N.E. 897 |
| Parties | NORTON v. CHANDLER & CO., Inc. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
R. G. Dodge and C. W. Putnam, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
Dickson & Knowles, of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff testified that as she went through the revolving door on entering the defendant's store the wing behind her suddenly struck her in the back and threw her forward onto the floor of the store. There was evidence that at the time of the accident this door revolved much more easily and much more rapidly than such doors usually do. One of the witnesses testified 'that as he passed through it [the revolving door in question] into the store it made two revolutions at least after he passed through, though he pushed it very gently'; and farther on he testified 'that after he came out he gave the door a hard push with his left hand and it made either eight or nine revolutions before it stopped.' It appeared that there were strips of rubber and felt fastened along the top and sides of each wing, for the purpose of retarding the door when it revolved and to prevent its spinning. These friction strips were so fastened to the wings of the door that they could be adjusted from time to time and in that way their efficiency in keeping the door from spinning maintained when they were worn down by use. In addition there was evidence that at the time of the accident here complained of the friction strips on the wings of the door were narrower and the contact less than was usual with revolving doors. Finally there was evidence that nothing had been done to the friction strips on this door since it was installed three years before the accident, and no inspection to determine their condition ever had been made by the defendant. This warranted a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant, first, in not inspecting the friction strips, and, secondly, in allowing the door to fall into a defective condition through failure to adjust the friction strips on their being worn down.
The defendant's main contention is that this case is governed by Buzzell v. R. H. White Co., 107 N.E. 385. That case was a case of a revolving door. But beyond that fact there is no similarity between the two cases. That case was submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts. Among other facts it was agreed that:
'There was no governing device to control the speed of this door and no other method of controlling the speed of the door except such as might be exercised by a person who was passing through it.' 'These rubber strips [attached to the outer edges of the door] were put on * * * for the purpose of preventing the passage of air, and at the same time giving the door an opportunity to swing in its framework without the wood wings coming in contact with the framework, and when the rubber strips are not worn and come in contact with the circular framework * * * they have some retarding effect upon the speed of the door in preventing the door from spinning.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial