Serota v. Salmansohn
| Decision Date | 01 June 1926 |
| Citation | 152 N.E. 242,256 Mass. 224 |
| Parties | SEROTA v. SALMANSOHN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; G. A. Flynn, Judge.
Action of tort by Rebecca Serota against Marcus Salmansohn. On defendant's exceptions after verdict for plaintiff. Exceptions overruled.
G. P. Beckford and Charles Shulman, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
J. J. O'Connor, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied, and, a verdict for the plaintiff having been returned, the case is here on the defendant's exceptions. It was admitted that the premises were owned by the defendant and that the stairway where the accident happened was under his control.
[1] The jury warrantably could find on evidence which was properly admitted, that the plaintiff saw the defendant on the first floor and asked him for a flat. The defendant said, ‘I have a flat upstairs, the top floor,’ and she replied, ‘Can you show me the flat?’ The defendant thereupon sent a girl with whom the plaintiff went to the flat, and after expressing her satisfaction with it they went downstairs. The plaintiff then said, The girl said, ‘Yes, and opened the cellar door.’ In passing down the stairs the plaintiff's foot was caught by a projecting nail in the middle of the second or third step, causing her to fall breaking her arm. It could be found that the nail rendered the stairs unsafe, and whether the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care ought to have known of this condition was a question of fact. Laplante v. Warren Cotton Mills, 165 Mass. 487, 43 N. E. 294;Tobin v. Brimfield, 182 Mass. 117, 65 N. E. 28.
[2] But even if there was no error in the admission of evidence, the defendant contends that the agency terminated when the flat had been inspected, and thereafter the plaintiff became a mere licensee. The plaintiff, however, whose due care was for the jury, was there at the defendant's invitation, and under the circumstances the use of the common cellar for storage of wood and coal was connected with and appurtenant to the flat. The duty therefore rested on him to keep the premises reasonably safe for those whom he invited to visit them as prospective tenants. Marston v. Reynolds, 211 Mass. 590, 98 N. E. 601;Jacobsen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyce v. Brewington
...or which by the use of ordinary care he should have known, the duty extends to giving the invitee notice thereof. Serota v. Salmansohn, 256 Mass. 224, 152 N.E. 242, 46 A.L.R. 517; Smith v. Jackson, 70 N.J.L. 183, 56 A. 118; Rudolph v. Elder, 105 Colo. 105, 95 P.2d 827; Flanigan v. Madison P......
-
Boyce v. Brewington.
...which by the use of ordinary care he should have known, the duty extends to giving the invitee notice thereof. Serota v. Salmansohn, 256 Mass. 224, 152 N.E. 242, 46 A.L.R. 517; Smith v. Jackson, 70 N.J.L. 183, 56 A. 118; Rudolph v. Elder, 105 Colo. 105, 95 P.2d 827; Flanigan v. Madison Plaz......
-
Statkunas v. Louis Promboim & Son, Inc
...601;Corrigan v. Union Sugar Refinery, 98 Mass. 577, 96 Am. Dec. 685;Walsh v. Adams, 245 Mass. 1, 139 N. E. 379;Serota v. Salmansohn, 256 Mass. 254, 152 N. E. 242, 46 A. L. R. 517. Her due care was for the jury. It follows that the verdict asked could not properly have been directed. Nor was......
-
Sneckner v. Feingold
... ... In Young v. Snell, 200 Mass. 242 , and ... Shavelson v. Marcus, 273 Mass. 237 , a nail stuck up ... out of the floor an inch or more. In Serota v ... Salmansohn, 256 Mass. 224 , the original papers show a ... projection of a nail for about one and a half inches. In ... Shwartz v ... ...