Sweeney v. City of Boston
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Citation | Sweeney v. City of Boston, 309 Mass. 106, 34 N.E.2d 658 (Mass. 1941) |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1941 |
| Parties | JANE F. SWEENEY v. CITY OF BOSTON. |
December 3, 1940.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., DONAHUE, QUA DOLAN, & RONAN, JJ.
Municipal Corporations, Liability for tort, Public schools. School and School Committee. Public Officer. Boston.
The school committee of Boston in permitting use of part of a school building, owned by the city but under the committee's control, for an entertainment pursuant to St. 1912, c. 195 Section 1, as amended by
Spec. St.
1916, c. 86, were public officers, and the city would not be liable to one attending the entertainment for injury caused by negligence of the committee's servant, although a charge for such use was made and was paid to the city.
TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated January 12, 1938. The action was tried before Good, J.
L. W. Black, for the plaintiff.
R. H. Hopkins Assistant Corporation Counsel, (N.
Moger, Assistant Corporation Counsel, with him,) for the defendant.
This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff as a result of falling down a stairway in a public school building, in the city of Boston, known as the "Teachers College and Girls' Latin School Building." The case was tried to a jury and at the close of the plaintiff's case the judge granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, subject to the plaintiff's exception. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, as directed, and the case comes before us on the report of the judge, the parties having stipulated that if the verdict for the defendant was properly ordered judgment shall be entered accordingly, otherwise judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff in a stated sum.
The evidence would warrant the jury in finding the following facts: On June 21 1937, one Sullivan applied to the director of extended use of the public schools, a subordinate of the school committee of Boston, for permission to use two halls and four rooms in the school building, before referred to, on October 22, 1937, for a "bridge, whist and beano" entertainment. The application was received by the director pursuant to Section 385 of the "Rules of the School Committee and Regulations of the Public Schools of the City of Boston," adopted under the authority of St. 1912, c. 195, Section 1, Spec. St. 1916, c. 86. The director approved the application and sent Sullivan a letter on September 8, stating that a charge of $33.45 was made for the proposed use of the school accommodations. Sullivan paid that sum to the director's secretary, who transmitted it to the office of the business manager of the committee who turned it over to the city collector. All funds received by the committee are turned over to the city collector and by him to the city treasurer, are put to the credit of the school committee, and are all used for purposes of the school committee. The sum charged in the present case was based upon certain schedules adopted by votes of the school committee. Only $3.51 of the total charge was not expended for expenses incurred by the committee in connection with the use of the building on the night of the entertainment.
After paying the charge made, Sullivan procured a temporary entertainment license on September 20, 1937, for "Bridge, whist & beano" on October 22, 1937, from the licensing division at City Hall, paying therefor a fee of $2. Tickets were sold for the affair in advance, and could be procured at the door of the school on the night of its occurrence, by any member of the public who should choose to purchase one.
The plaintiff, an elderly woman, had purchased a ticket in advance. Immediately after passing through the main door of the building she stopped in the entrance to the vestibule proper, located about eight feet distant, to take her ticket out of her bag. There was a throng of people there, and as the "crowd was going along" she took one step to the right and fell down a stairway, which was about eighteen inches from the door through which she had entered. An electric light bulb affixed to the wall over the landing of this staircase was not lighted, and the stairway was unguarded at the point where the plaintiff fell. Further facts which the jury could have found relative to the accident and its proximate cause need not be recited, since, even if it be assumed that the employees of the school committee who were on duty in the building that night (the custodian of the building and assistants) were negligent, that the plaintiff's injuries resulted therefrom, and that she was in the exercise of due care, she cannot recover.
St. 1912, c.
195, Section 1, Spec. St. 1916, c. 86, reads as follows: "For the purpose of promoting the usefulness of the public school property of the city of Boston, the school committee of that city may conduct such educational and recreative activities in or upon school property under its control, and shall allow the use thereof by individuals and associations, subject to such regulations as the school committee may establish, for such educational, recreative, social, civic, philanthropic and similar purposes as the committee may deem to be for the interest of the community: provided, that such use shall not interfere or be inconsistent with the use of the premises for school purposes."
The school committee of the city of Boston is a board of public officers whose duties are prescribed by statute, and in the execution of its duties its members act not as agents of the city but as public officers in the performance of public duties. McKenna v. Kimball, 145 Mass. 555 , 556...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Commonwealth v. Dowe
...Ryder v. Taunton, 306 Mass. 154 (superintendent of streets). Chaffee v. Oxford, 308 Mass. 520 (board of public welfare). Sweeney v. Boston, 309 Mass. 106 Warburton v. Quincy, 309 Mass. 111 . Reitano v. Haverhill, 309 Mass. 118 (school committee). It does not follow that such officers are St......
-
Urban Transport, Inc. v. Mayor of Boston
...the school committee of Boston may be considered an independent body set apart from the departments of the city. Sweeney v. Boston, 309 Mass. 106, 109, 34 N.E.2d 658 (1941). Cf. Trustees of Pub. Library of Boston v. Rector of Trinity Church, 263 Mass. 173, 179, 160 N.E.2d 665 (1928). Both p......
-
Warburton v. City of Quincy
...function of promoting the usefulness of the public schools into a quasi commercial enterprise. But, as is pointed out in Sweeney v. Boston, Mass., 34 N.E.2d 658, the decisive facts are that the school committee are public officers, and not officers or agents of the city itself. In principle......
-
Hodgman v. City of Taunton
...v. Auburn, 303 Mass. 424, 428, 22 N.E.2d 46;Gibney v. Mayor of Fall River, 306 Mass. 561, 565, 29 N.E.2d 133;Sweeney v. Boston, 309 Mass. 106, 110, 34 N.E.2d 658. It follows from what we have said that the two existing ordinances concerning which adjudication is sought have no application t......