Taylor v. Loring

• Decision Date: 26 February 1909
• Citation: 201 Mass. 283,87 N.E. 469
• Parties: TAYLOR v. LORING et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

201 Mass. 283

87 N.E. 469

TAYLOR v. LORING et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 26, 1909

COUNSEL

Wm. F Mooers and Herbert

C. Joyner, for plaintiff.

Geo. W Buck, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The defendants are the owners of a building on Bedford street in Boston, including the numbers from 114 to 128 on the street. At No. 128 is a tenement occupied by the Buildings Care Company, consisting of an office on the first floor and a basement. The floor of this office is about on a level with the sidewalk, and the entrance is through a vestibule, wholly within the line of the building, about nine feet long on the line of the street, and about four feet wide. From the middle of it a door of ordinary width opens into the office, and at the left-hand side of the door, as one enters, there was, at the time of the accident to the plaintiff, a trapdoor that could be raised on hinges and opened back against the wall of the office. Near the rear left-hand corner of this trapdoor was a smaller opening about a foot square, which was intended to be used as a ventilator for the basement below, and this was also hung on hinges, so that it could be lifted up with the opening towards the interior of the building. There was evidence that it could be opened only so as to stand up on its hinges, but one witness testified that it could be laid over back upon the floor of the vestibule. On the opposite side of the door, near the right-hand corner of the vestibule there was another similar small opening on hinges, which had no connection with the accident. The whole floor of the vestibule and of the coverings was made of round translucent glass laid in cement to light the basement below. The trapdoor and the coverings to these openings, when in place, made a perfect, smooth floor in the vestibule, and they were in perfect condition. While the cover of the left-hand small opening was open to ventilate the basement, the plaintiff, under circumstances which were in dispute as affecting her care, stepped into the opening and hurt herself. The premises were in the occupation of the Buildings Care Company under a written lease in which they covenanted to keep the premises in good repair and condition. The vestibule was constructed by the defendants before the tenants entered under this lease.

The defendants had nothing to do with the care and management of the premises at the time of...