Pettingell v. City of Chelsea
| Decision Date | 18 May 1894 |
| Citation | 161 Mass. 368,37 N.E. 380 |
| Parties | PETTINGELL v. CITY OF CHELSEA. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
M.T. Allen, for appellant.
D.E Gould, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the superior court sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration, and directing judgment for the defendant. The declaration contains two counts; the first at common law, and the second under St.1887, c. 270. The demurrer is general, but the point is not taken that the second count contains no allegation that notice of the time, place, and cause of injury was given to the defendant. We assume that St.1887, c. 270, may apply to cities and towns. See Connolly v. City of Waltham, 156 Mass. 368, 31 N.E. 302; Conroy v. Inhabitants of Clinton, 158 Mass. 318, 33 N.E. 525. But the statute in terms only gives to an employe who has received personal injury from the causes described in the first three clauses of the first section, or to his legal representatives in case the injury results in death, "the same right of compensation and remedies against the employer as if the employe had not been an employe of nor in the service of the employer nor engaged in its work." The question, then is whether a city is responsible in damages to any person who, in the exercise of due care, is injured by the breaking of a pole to which was attached the wires of the fire-signal system of the city, if the pole broke because it was "negligently constructed, cared for, maintained, and placed" in its position. The special authority of the city of Chelsea to establish a fire department is found in St.1881, c. 200, § 16. In Hafford v. New Bedford, 16 Gray, 297, it was held that the city was not liable for the negligence of the members of a fire department established by the city council pursuant to an act of the legislature. In that case the alleged negligence consisted in the members of the fire department carelessly driving a hose carriage against the plaintiff in a public highway during an alarm of fire. In Fisher v. Boston, 104 Mass. 87, the plaintiff was injured by the bursting of hose connected with a fire engine, which was alleged to have been defective, and to have been negligently used at a fire by members of the fire department. It was held that the city was not liable. In the opinion it is said that: "In the absence of express statute therefor, municipal corporations are no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitney v. City of Worcester
...employees, D'Urso v. Methuen, 338 Mass. 73, 153 N.E.2d 655 (1958), rather than by fire department employees, Pettingell v. Chelsea, 161 Mass. 368, 37 N.E. 380 (1894).10 The inquiry into governmental tort liability in a particular case must begin with a determination whether the conduct in q......
-
Morash & Sons, Inc. v. Com.
...water department employees (D'Urso v. Methuen, 338 Mass. 73, 153 N.E.2d 655), rather than by fire department employees. Pettingell v. Chelsea, 161 Mass. 368, 37 N.E. 380. In other cases a number of fine distinctions have been spun out from the stated exceptions to discriminate among the cla......
-
Robert Workman v. Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York
...as such. Hafford v. New Bedford (1860) 16 Gray, 297; Fisher v. Boston (1870) 104 Mass. 87, 6 Am. Rep. 196; Pettingell v. Chelsea (1894) 161 Mass. 368, 24 L. R. A. 426, 37 N. E. 380; Burrill v. Augusta (1886) 78 Me. 118, 58 Am. Rep. 788, 3 Atl. 177; Edgerly v. Concord (1879) 59 N. H. 78, and......
-
Rochleau v. Town of Millbury
..."Absent an expressed intent by the legislature to create such a cause of action, none may be construed." Pettingell v. City of Chelsea, 161 Mass. 368, 369-70, 37 N.E. 380 (1894). [N]o private action, unless authorized by express statute, can be maintained against a city for the neglect of a......