Solomon v. Weissman
| Decision Date | 04 January 1929 |
| Citation | 164 N.E. 487,265 Mass. 423 |
| Parties | SOLOMON v. WEISSMAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Charles H. Donahue, Judge.
Action by Samuel Solomon against Esther Weissman. On exceptions by defendant to trial court's refusal to direct verdict in her favor. Exceptions overruled.W. B. Keenan, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Edward J. Sullivan, of Boston, for defendant.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries. Evidence was introduced tending to prove that the plaintiff, while walking in front of the defendant's building, slipped on a ridge or mound of ice in the middle of the sidewalk and fell; that icicles about three feet long were hanging from the cornice of the roof of the building and water was dropping from them upon the middle of the sidewalk; that the front wall of the building was on the street line and the front edge of the cornice extended over the sidewalk; that the mound or ridge of ice was about three inches thick and about three feet wide extending on the sidewalk the whole length of the building parallel to it; that icicles had been observed hanging from the eaves all along the building for a week or more prior to the accident, and snow also covered a part of the sidewalk.
The refusal of the judge to direct a verdict for the defendant was right. The jury could have found that the ice on which the plaintiff fell was formed from water that dropped from icicles at or near the edge of the cornice of the defendant's building overhanging the sidewalk. The plaintiff was not required to explain the presence of icicles on the cornice. This part of his case was made out if he proved that icicles there created a dangerous condition on the sidewalk likely to cause injury to travelers thereon. The liability is based upon the maintenance of a building with a cornice so constructed and located that through...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Economy Grocery Stores
...not an essential element of a public nuisance. Dalton v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 241 Mass. 400, 135 N.E. 318;Solomon v. Weissman, 265 Mass. 423, 164 N.E. 487;Bullard v. Mattoon, 297 Mass. 182, 8 N.E.2d 348. But the jury found that the plaintiff did not prove that the string bean c......
-
Blanchard v. Stone's, Inc.
...presented a question of fact which was properly submitted to the jury. Allen v. Salmansohn, 254 Mass. 500, 150 N.E. 299;Solomon v. Weissman, 265 Mass. 423, 164 N.E. 487;Bullard v. Mattoon, Mass., 8 N.E.2d 348;Crafts v. McCobb, Mass., 21 N.E.2d 226;Harrison v. Poli-New England Theatres, Inc.......
-
Pritchard v. Mabrey
...Square Independent Congregational Church, 148 Mass. 261, 19 N.E. 387; Marston v. Phipps, 209 Mass. 552, 95 N.E. 954; Solomon v. Weissman, 265 Mass. 423, 164 N.E. 487; Bullard v. Mattoon, 297 Mass. 182, 8 N.E.2d 348; Tomasunas v. Khoury, 314 Mass. 754, 51 N.E.2d 325; Ferreira v. Gross, 323 M......
-
Blanchard v. Stone's, Inc.
... ... which was properly submitted to the jury. Allen v ... Salmansohn, 254 Mass. 500 ... Solomon v ... Weissman, 265 Mass. 423 ... Bullard v. Mattoon, ... 297 Mass. 182 ... Crafts v. McCobb, 303 Mass. 172 ... Harrison v. Poli-New England ... ...