Richardson v. City of Boston

• Decision Date: 29 March 1892
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. CITY OF BOSTON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

156 Mass. 145

30 N.E. 478

RICHARDSON v. CITY OF BOSTON.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 29, 1892

COUNSEL

H. Dunham, for plaintiff.

T.W Proctor, Asst. City Sol., for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

The archway into which the plaintiff fell was in the front wall of a brick block which was built up to and formed the line of the highway. It was about three feet wide and three or four feet high, and served as an entrance to steps leading down to an arched and covered passage-way, which ran through the block. No part of the steps, archway, or passage-way was within the limits of the highway, except "a portion of the steps, which did not come above the surface, but was covered with planking, making the street at that point even and regular with the rest of the highway, and of the paper width." The plaintiff stepped down, and slid from the sidewalk through the archway, and down upon the steps, receiving the injuries complained of. The sidewalk was free from snow and ice, but snow was falling at the time. The plaintiff's declaration, as well as the notice to the city, would seem to have been drawn rather upon the theory that there was "an opening or hole in the sidewalk, *** extending below the surface, *** concealed by a loose board, covered with snow." This was not so. The court expressly found that there was no defect within the limits of the highway, and that there was no omission on the part of the defendant other than a failure to put a railing before the archway. The evidence on which the finding was based is stated, and the question is whether, as matter of law, it was justified; or whether, in other words, the city, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have had a railing at the archway. The archway was at right angles with, and not a continuation of, the sidewalk, and, except that one might slip (as the plaintiff did) or stumble, or be pushed, there was no reason to apprehend that a traveler passing along the street, and using due care, would fall into it, and down the steps. It is not the possibility, however, that a traveler may get hurt if there is no railing or barrier that settles the question as to whether one should be put up, but whether one is required for the reasonable security of the public. Adams v Natick, 13 Allen, 431. And that again depends on whether the danger to be guarded against is of such an unusual character as to expose the traveler to unusual hazard unless a railing or barrier is put up. Adams v. Natick, supra; Marshall v....