Silva v. Henry & Close Co.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1932 |
| Citation | 181 N.E. 228,279 Mass. 334 |
| Parties | SILVA v. HENRY & CLOSE CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Donnelly, Judge.
Action by Ambrosia Silva against Henry & Close Company. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
W. L. Baxter, of Boston, for plaintiff.
W. E. Cunningham, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff through the negligence of a servant of the defendant. The plaintiff testified that for about ten years prior to the accident he had worked at the Boston Fish Pier as a lumper, loading and unloading vessels and doing any kind of work he could get; that he succeeded in obtaining work on some days and failed on others; that on the day of his accidnt he worked several hours in the morning; that in the early afternoon he was standing on the edge of the pier, overlooking a recently docked vessel and seeking work, when he was struck by a push cart in the control of an employee of the defendant, thrown off the pier and injured. An officer of the Boston Fish Market Corporation testified that that corporation controlled the Boston Fish Pier and that the defendant was one of its tenants engaged in the wholesale fish business; that there were three signs in front of the pier at the entrance which read, ; that there were also three other signs at the entrance to the pier, which read respectively as follow: He also testified that the plaintiff never applied to use the pier; that there was no system of passes for workmen to go on the pier; that the loading or unloading of vessels is handled by their respective crews and those they hire on the pier; that this had been the practice since the pier had been built; that these hired men are called lumpers; and that no lumper ever applied for permission to use the pier.
The business of the Boston Fish Market Corporation in controlling the Boston Fish Pier might have been inferred to require reasonable accommodations to those of its tenants who in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. August A. Busch Co. of Mass.
...Safety Fund National Bank, 222 Mass. 150, 154, 109 N.E. 889; Rice v. Rosenberg, 266 Mass. 520, 524, 165 N.E. 667; Silva v. Henry & Close Co., 279 Mass. 334, 336, 181 N.E. 228; LeBlanc v. Atlantic Building & Supply Co., Inc., 323 Mass. 702, 703, 84 N.E.2d 10; Johnston v. De La Guerra Propert......
-
Pooles v. Boston & Maine R.R.
...be considered to be an invitee of the chair company in seeking work at its factory in response to its advertisement, Silva v. Henry & Close Co., 279 Mass. 334, 181 N.E. 228; Forgione v. Frankini Construction Co., 308 Mass. 29, 30 N.E.2d 819; but there is lacking any evidence tending to show......
-
Pereira v. Gloucester Community Pier Ass'n
... ... Colbert v. Ricker, 314 Mass. 138 ... The case is ... distinguishable from Silva v. Henry & Close Co. 279 Mass ... 334, where the owner of a fish pier had impliedly invited ... ...
-
Hayes v. Boston Fish Market Corporation
...Wendell v. Baxter, 12 Gray, 494. Manter v. New Bedford, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamboat Co. 246 Mass. 551 . Silva v. Henry & Close Co. 279 Mass. 334 Fortier v. Hibernian Building Association of Boston Highlands, 315 Mass. 446 . In the opinion of a majority of the court it could have......