Stefani v. Freshman

Decision Date01 March 1919
PartiesSTEFANI v. FRESHMAN et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Lloyd E. White, Judge.

Action of tort for personal injuries by Theresa E. Stefani against David Freshman and his trustee. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant named excepts. Exceptions overruled.

The notice of injury given to defendant by plaintiff was as follows:

‘Boston, January 7, 1915.

‘To the Person, Persons or Corporation in Control of the Premises Situated on the Northwest Corner of Etna Street and North Beacon Street, in That Part of Boston Called Brighton, Being the Same Premises Occupied in Whole or in Part by D. Freshman:

‘You are hereby notified that while I was a traveler on the sidewalk on Etna street, in that part of Boston called Brighton, in front of the premises described above, on December 29, 1914, about 5:45 to 6:15 p. m., and that while I was in the exercise of due care, I was injured by slipping on said sidewalk opposite the entrance to the basement of said premises described above, said basement being used for store purposes, and the entrance to said basement being the first doorway from North Beacon street, going south along Etna street; that said injuries were caused by the slippery and unsafe condition of said sidewalk, and by the accumulation thereon of ice and snow or of ice or snow, which accumulation was caused and suffered to remain through your negligence, for which injuries I claim compensation in damages.

Mrs. Theresa E. Stefani,

‘By Her Attorney, Thomas C. O'Brien.’

Jas. J. McCarthy and Thos. C. O'Brien, both of Boston, for plaintiff.

Carl Gerstein and John H. Blanchard, both of Boston, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The action is tort to recover damages for personal injuries caused by a ridge or ice on the sidewalk of a public way on which the plaintiff while a traveler slipped and fell. The jury having returned a verdict for her the case is here on the defendant's exceptions to the admission of evidence, and to the refusal of the presiding judge to rule that the action could not be maintained. The evidence warranted a finding that the accumulation of ice was caused by the freezing of water dripping from a wooden canopy or hood which projected over the sidewalk and formed part of a building abutting on the street, occupied by the defendant as a tenant of one Langmaid the lessor.

It is argued that if the plaintiff can recover the lessor alone is liable under the rule of Maloney v. Hayes, 206 Mass. 1, 91 N. E. 911,28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 200, and Marston v. Phipps, 209 Mass. 552, 95 N. E. 954. But by the terms of the lease the entire building was demised, and having covenanted ‘to do all the necessary repairs' the defendant as between himself and the public was required to keep the building in such a state of repair...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Stith v. Newberry Co., 31563.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Febrero 1935
    ...Tea Co., 251 N Y. Supp. 360; Young v. Talcott (Conn.), 159 Atl. 881; Marston v. Phipps. 209 Mass. 552, 95 N.E. 954; Stefani v. Freshman, 232 Mass 354, 122 N.E. 293; Newnam v. Moran (Md.), 141 Atl. 385; see, also Norville v. Hub Furniture Co., 32 Fed. (2d) 420.] A qualification of this rule ......
  • Stith v. J.J. Newberry Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 Febrero 1935
    ...& Pacific Tea Co., 251 N.Y.S. 360; Young v. Talcott (Conn.), 159 A. 881; Marston v. Phipps, 209 Mass. 552, 95 N.E. 954; Stefani v. Freshman, 232 Mass. 354, 122 N.E. 293; Newnam v. Moran (Md.), 141 A. 385; see, Norville v. Hub Furniture Co., 32 F.2d 420.] A qualification of this rule which h......
  • Blanchard v. Stone's, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 1939
    ...appears from the notice to show that it was intended to be given to a particular person and that it was received by him. Stefani v. Freshman, 232 Mass. 354, 122 N.E. 293;Haverty v. Ernst, 232 Mass. 543, 122 N.E. 727. The name of a person is the usual but not exclusive means of establishing ......
  • Coghlan v. White
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 24 Junio 1920
    ...on which was the defective spout whereby the ice accumulated causing the injury. The notice was sufficient in form. Stefani v. Freshman, 232 Mass. 354, 122 N. E. 293. The return of the constable, indorsed on the notice and signed by him, was in these words: ‘Suffolk, ss.: April 21, 1917. I ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT