Pilling v. Hall
| Decision Date | 26 February 1925 |
| Citation | 146 N.E. 689,251 Mass. 425 |
| Parties | PILLING v. HALL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.
Action of tort by Alfred J. Pilling against Fred L. Hall to recover for personal injuries sustained on defendant's premises at latter's invitation. Verdict was directed for defendant, and case reported. Judgment for defendant.
J. W. Lowrance and J. L. Hurley, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
L. C. Doyle, of Boston, for defendant.
Under an arrangement between the parties, the plaintiff, an electrical contractor, performed all the electrical work required by the defendant in the buildings owned by him. When work of this kind was to be done, a call was sent to the plaintiff's place of business. September 19, 1921, a request to look after the electric call bells in the defendant's apartment house was received, and the following afternoon, between three and four o'clock, the plaintiff, in response to the call, entered the house through the basement door and proceeded to find the batteries. The janitor was not present, and the only light in the basement was that coming through the leaded panes of the outside door. The plaintiff saw a door (marked ‘E’ on the plan) which he opened, and passing into the room known as the boiler room fell into the unguarded boiler pit, three feet nine inches in depth. He testified that as he went into the boiler room he had a flashlight and threw ‘the light in around the corner to see where the shelf would be to hold the batteries'; that he took two or three steps and fell into the pit. On cross-examination he testified that after his accident the janitor pointed out the batteries to him and he had no difficulty in seeing them. The defendant, called by the plaintiff, testified that the batteries were on a ‘sort of a shell’ on a shelf in the hallway, in a container about a foot or eighteen inches from the ceiling. A verdict was returned for the defendant, by the direction of the trial judge, and the case reported.
In Murray v. Nantasket Beach Steamboat Co., 248 Mass. 587, 143 N. E. 623, the plaintiff had been at work on a boat belonging to the defendant. On the day in question while gathering his tools, he approached a door of the hose house and fell through a hatchway. It was held that he had every opportunity to examine the premises and must be considered to have assumed the risks of his employment, as they were apparent, or he could have observed them, if he had exercised his right to examine the premises before entering upon his employment. The case at bar is governed by the Murray Case. The plaintiff came upon the defendant's premises as an independent contractor, and the defendant was not bound to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poirier v. Town of Plymouth
...was charged with assuming all risks that were "obvious or could have been discovered by a reasonable inspection." Pilling v. Hall, 251 Mass. 425, 427, 146 N.E. 689, 690 (1925), and cases cited. This test is indistinguishable from the standard under the hidden defect test that is, the defect......
-
Hannon v. Hayes-Bickford Lunch System, Inc.
...333 Mass. 663, 665, 132 N.E.2d 385. See Murray v. Nantasket Beach Steamboat Co., 248 Mass. 587, 589, 143 N.E. 623; Pilling v. Hall, 251 Mass. 425, 426-427, 146 N.E. 689; Cavanaugh v. Crocker, 335 Mass. ----, 140 N.E. 167; Barry v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 335 Mass. ----, 140 N.E.2d 198. Compare B......
-
Walker v. Benz-Kid Co.
...v. Booth, 202 Mass. 17, 88 N. E. 449,132 Am. St. Rep. 468;Hall v. Henry Thayer & Co., 225 Mass. 151, 113 N. E. 644;Pilling v. Hall, 251 Mass. 425, 146 N. E. 689;Forance v. Bigelow-Hartford Carpet Co., 257 Mass. 507, 154 N. E. 174;Favereau v. Gabele, 262 Mass. 118, 159 N. E. 738. ‘The owner ......
-
De Martin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.
...had contained oil, see Boisvert v. Ward, 199 Mass. 594, 85 N.E. 849; Archer v. Eldredge, 204 Mass. 323, 90 N.E. 525; Pilling v. Hall, 251 Mass. 425, 426-427, 146 N.E. 689; Favereau v. Gabele, 262 Mass. 118, 119, 159 N.E. 738; Taunton v. Hoar, 288 Mass. 326, 192 N.E. 831, for we think there ......