Tritsch v. Boston Edison Co.

Decision Date02 March 1973
Citation363 Mass. 179,293 N.E.2d 264
PartiesPeter TRITSCH v. BOSTON EDISON COMPANY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Francis L. Swift, Boston, for defendant.

Morris Michelson, Boston, for plaintiff.

Before TAURO, C.J., and REARDON, BRAUCHER, HENNESSEY and KAPLAN, JJ.

HENNESSEY, Justice.

This is an action in tort brought in the Superior Court originally against the Boston Edison Company (Edison), John F. Grimes and Robert F. Hawkins. The two counts against the individual defendants are for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The count against Edison is for the negligent maintenance of a concrete electric light pole. After the plaintiff introduced some of his evidence before a jury, the judge allowed his motion to sever the counts against Grimes and Hawkins and to go forward only against Edison. At the close of all the evidence, Edison's motion for a directed verdict was denied and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Edison is here on an outline bill of exceptions alleging error in the denial of its motion for a directed verdict, in the exclusion of certain testimony relating to an agreement between the plaintiff, Grimes and Hawkins, and in the exclusion of certain questions during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness.

We summarize the evidence. The plaintiff lived in an apartment on Marlboro Street in Boston. There is a public alley behind his apartment which is about nine feet wide. On the sidewalk of this alley there was a concrete electric light pole which was owned and installed by Edison. The pole was hollow in the center through which wires and steel reinforcing rods went up to an electric light. The pole was twelve feet above the ground, four feet below the ground and about six inches from the roadway. For at least four to six years the pole was cracked all the way through three feet above the sidewalk. The crack was approximately one-half inch to two inches wide and went completely around the pole and through the whole of the concrete. The pole leaned in the direction of the alley. Edison had in its employ men whose duty it was to inspect and repair its poles, but there was no record of any repairs to this pole.

On the evening of May 15, 1968, a fire occurred in a building across the alley from the plaintiff's apartment. The plaintiff came out of his apartment and stood on the sidewalk of the alley a few feet from the pole. A fire engine from the Boston fire department driven by firefighter Grimes came down the alley and stopped before reaching the pole. The engine was eight feet wide and its tires scraped the curbing. While stopped, firefighter Hawkins left his position as tillerman at the wheel at the rear of the truck, and swung the bucket over the left side of the truck. The bucket is composed of the seat, the windshield and the steering wheel. Grimes then drove forward approximately three to five miles an hour for about twenty feet until the bucket struck the pole. The upper part of the pole separated from the lower part at the crack. It toppled over and struck the plaintiff, knocking him unconscious and injuring his head, shoulder, chest, ribs and arm. There was a slight dent in the left rear fender of the fire engine and a crack in the windshield of the overhanging bucket.

1. Edison argues that it was error to deny its motion for a directed verdict. It claims that there was insufficient evidence to charge it with negligence and that, even if there were, its negligence was not a proximate cause of the injury. Edison installed and owned the pole. It had the duty to see that it was reasonably fit for use and had a continuing duty to inspect it and repair it when necessary. Reil v. Lowell Gas Co., 353 Mass. 120, 127, 228 N.E.2d 707. Robert Williams, Inc. v. Ferris, 355 Mass. 288, 292--293, 244 N.E.2d 736. LEAVITT V. GLICK REALTY CORP., MASS., 285 N.E.2D 786.A There was evidence that the pole was cracked clear through, and this condition was an obvious one. There was evidence that the pole leaned to one side and there was also evidence that it had been in this condition for four to six years and there had been no attempt to repair it. Hence, there was evidence from which the jury could properly infer that Edison was negligent in failing to discover and remedy the defect in the pole.

If liability is to be established against Edison, its negligence must necessarily be shown to be a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Edison's argument, on this issue, in support of its motion for a directed verdict, has two facets. Firstly, it says that a conclusion is not warranted that the crack in the pole had anything to do with the accident and the plaintiff's injury. In other words, Edison contends that, so far as the proof shows, the collision of the truck with the pole was the sole cause of the fall of the pole. However, the jury could properly conclude that the defect in the pole was a factor in its fall by reason of the evidence that the break occurred where the crack had been and that the impact was relatively minor as shown by the slight damage to the vehicle and other related evidence.

Secondly, on the issue of proximate cause, edison argues that the conduct of Grimes ad Hawkins in causing the truck to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Rubenstein v. Royal Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • May 27, 1998
    ...Royal which did not credit the settlements seems to provide cumulative damages for indemnity. See, e.g., Tritsch v. Boston Edison Co., 363 Mass. 179, 182, 293 N.E.2d 264 (1973) (plaintiff cannot receive remuneration in amounts greater than actual damages); McGrath v. Mishara, 386 Mass. 74, ......
  • Doull v. Foster
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • February 26, 2021
    ...factor test. See, e.g., Bernier v. Boston Edison Co., 380 Mass. 372, 386, 403 N.E.2d 391 (1980); Tritsch v. Boston Edison Co., 363 Mass. 179, 182, 293 N.E.2d 264 (1973); Falvey v. Hamelburg, 347 Mass. 430, 435, 198 N.E.2d 400 (1964); Quinby v. Boston & Me. R.R., 318 Mass. 438, 444-445, 61 N......
  • Graci v. Damon
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • March 27, 1978
    ...359-364, 112 N.E. 950 (1916); Robinson v. Weber Duck Inn Co., 294 Mass. 75, 79-80, 1 N.E.2d 27 (1936); Tritsch v. Boston Edison Co., 363 Mass. 179, 181-182, 293 N.E.2d 264 (1973). Compare Lane v. Atlantic Works, 111 Mass. 136, 139-140; Morrison v. Medaglia, 287 Mass. 46, 49-50, 191 N.E. 133......
  • Scannell v. Ed. Ferreirinha & Irmao, LDA
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1987
    ...that a plaintiff suing multiple tortfeasors does not "receive remuneration in excess of his actual damages." Tritsch v. Boston Edison Co., 363 Mass. 179, 182, 293 N.E.2d 264 (1973). If "claim" were defined to mean the demand for judgment, rather than the amount of a plaintiff's damages, the......
  • 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