Rooney v. Inhabitants of Randolph

• Decision Date: 30 June 1880
• Citation: Rooney v. Inhabitants of Randolph, 128 Mass. 580 (Mass. 1880)
• Parties: William Rooney v. Inhabitants of Randolph
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

128 Mass. 580

William Rooney v. Inhabitants of Randolph

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 30, 1880

Norfolk. Tort for injuries to the plaintiff's carriage alleged to have been caused, on February 17, 1878, by a defect in a highway in the defendant town. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, which appear in the opinion.

Exceptions sustained.

B Adams, for the defendant.

J. L. Eldridge, for the plaintiff.

Colt J. Morton & Soule, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

Before the St. of 1877, c. 234, was passed, it was enough for the plaintiff, in actions to recover for injuries caused by defects in the highway, to prove tat the injury complained of was caused by a defect which had existed for the requisite time, without reference to the question whether its existence or continuance could have been reasonably prevented. The statutes did not attempt to define what constituted a defect. The requirement was that all highways should be made safe and convenient for travellers at all times; and the question submitted to the jury was whether the defect in question made the way unsafe and inconvenient, with reference to the situation of the road and the nature and amount of travel to be accommodated by it. If it was a defect, and had existed for the required time, the town was held liable even if the defect was produced or continued by causes against which no human foresight could guard. The existence of the defect was sufficient, whether it arose from a want of reasonable care and diligence on the part of the town or not. Gen. Sts. c. 44, §§ 1, 22. In Horton v. Ipswich, 12 Cush. 488, it was decided to be no defence that the town used ordinary care and prudence in repairing the road, if by such care it was not made safe and convenient. See also George v. Haverhill, 110 Mass. 506; Bodwell v. North Andover, 110 Mass. 511, note.

It is now provided by the St. of 1877, c. 234, which repeals the provisions of the General Statutes, that towns shall be liable for personal injury or damage to property caused by defects in a highway "which might have been remedied, or which damage or injury might have been prevented by reasonable care and diligence on the part of the county town, place or persons obliged by law to repair the same." § 2. This is a limitation on the former liability of towns, and it is now necessary, not...