Welsh v. Inhabitants of Amesbury
| Decision Date | 01 March 1898 |
| Citation | 170 Mass. 437,49 N.E. 735 |
| Parties | WELSH v. INHABITANTS OF AMESBURY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
B.B. Jones and M.A. Pingree, for plaintiff.
J.T. Choate, for defendants.
The defendants requested the court to rule that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and to direct a verdict for the defendants. The court refused to do so, and the only question is whether the ruling which the defendants requested should have been given. We think that it should not have been, and that the ruling of the court was right. It was a question of fact for the jury whether, in view of all of the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care. It cannot be said as matter of law that she was careless in being where she was, or in attempting to pass over the sidewalk in the condition in which it was, or that she assumed the risk in doing so. Gilman v. Railroad, 168 Mass. 454, 47 N.E. 193; Calkins v. City of Springfield, 167 Mass. 68, 44 N.E. 1055; Warren v. Railroad, 163 Mass. 484, 488, 40 N.E. 895; McGuinness v. City of Worcester, 160 Mass. 272, 35 N.E. 1068. Whether the sidewalk was in a defective condition, and whether the defendants had reasonable notice of the defect (if there was one), or with proper care and diligence ought to have known of it, were all questions of fact for the jury, who were entitled to consider the nature of the alleged defect, the amount of travel over the place where the accident occurred, its nearness to the business portion of the town, and such other circumstances as would tend to throw light on the questions at issue. Street v. Holyoke, 105 Mass. 82; Morse v. City of Boston, 109 Mass. 446; McAuley v. Boston, 113 Mass. 503; Howe v. Lowell, 101 Mass. 99; Harriman v. Boston, 114 Mass. 241; Bingham v. City of Boston, 161 Mass. 3, 36 N.E. 473. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbs v. Village Of Girard
... ... Detroit, 144 Mich. 684,108 N.W. 102; Lamb v. City of ... Worcester, 177 Mass. 82; Welsh v. Inhabitants of Amesbury, ... 170 Mass. 437; Town of Watertown v. Greaves, 50 C.C.A. 172, ... ...
-
Shreve v. City of Ft. Wayne
...what is reasonable care. Forker v. Sandy Lake, 130 Pa. 123, 18 Atl. 609;Miller v. Canton, 112 Mo. App. 322, 87 S. W. 96;Welsh v. Amesbury, 170 Mass. 437, 49 N. E. 735;Hennepin v. Coleman, 132 Ill. App. 604;Moore v. Kalamazoo, 109 Mich. 176, 66 N. W. 1089;Coolidge v. New York, 99 App. Div. 1......
-
Shreve v. City of Fort Wayne
... ... 123, 18 A ... 609; Miller v. Town of Canton (1905), 112 ... Mo.App. 322, 87 S.W. 96; Welsh v. Inhabitants of ... Amesbury (1898), 170 Mass. 437, 49 N.E. 735; ... Hennepin v. Coleman ... ...
-
Mcmahon v. Lynn & B.R. Co.
... ... the time of the accident was for the jury. Welsh v ... Amesbury, 170 Mass. 437, 440, 49 N.E. 735; Mahoney ... v. Metropolitan Railroad, 104 Mass ... ...