Wheeler v. Sawyer
| Decision Date | 23 October 1914 |
| Parties | WHEELER v. SAWYER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Cyrus Brewer, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Ernest H. Vaughan, Edward T. Esty, Jay Clark, Jr., and Paul Potter, all of Worcester, for defendant.
DE COURCY, J.
It is not in dispute that the flight of stairs down which the plaintiff fell was wholly within the control of the defendant who was the owner of the building, and that he owed to the plaintiff, as a customer of one of his tenants, the duty of keeping the stairs in a reasonably safe condition. The jury were warranted in finding that he failed to perform that legal duty because of his allowing the brass binding on the edge of the top step, or on that of the second one from the top, to become loosened and raised from the woodwork. It could be found that at the place where the toe of the plaintiff's shoe caught, the brass binding was not fastened down securely and was turned back from the top of the stairs, and that it looked old and worn. The ordinary use of the stairway would tend to loosen the screws by which the brass was attached to the wood; and although the defendant testified that the steps were repaired within two years, his agent in charge of the property could not say whether the binding on the edge of the top and second steps was put on two or ten years before the accident. The jury saw the stairs and the photographs taken after the accident. In view of this evidence, and the inferences that might be drawn from the appearance and condition of the brass, the judge rightly refused to give the second ruling requested by the defendant. Toland v. Paine Furniture Co., 179 Mass. 501, 61 N.E. 52; Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386, 21 Ann. Cas., 1143. It is unnecessary to consider whether the defendant could be held liable on the further ground that the hallway was insufficiently lighted. The question of the plaintiff's due care plainly was for the jury. Marston v. Reynolds, 211 Mass. 590, 98 N.E. 601.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. George B. Peck Co.
...S.W.2d 876; Vitale v. Wells (Mo. App.), 285 S.W. 522; Finn v. Terminal R. Assn. of St. Louis (Mo. App.), 97 S.W.2d 890; Wheeler v. Sawyer, 219 Mass. 103, 106 N.E. 592; Gould v. Ry. Co., 191 Mass. 396, 77 N.E. 712; Hannan v. Wire Co., 193 Mass. 127, 78 N.E. 749; Shavelson v. Marcus, 173 N.E.......
-
Stewart v. George B. Peck Co.
...(2d) 876; Vitale v. Wells (Mo. App.), 285 S.W. 522; Finn v. Terminal R. Assn. of St. Louis (Mo. App.), 97 S.W. (2d) 890; Wheeler v. Sawyer, 219 Mass. 103, 106 N.E. 592; Gould v. Ry. Co., 191 Mass. 396, 77 N.E. 712; Hannan v. Wire Co., 193 Mass. 127, 78 N.E. 749; Shavelson v. Marcus, 173 N.E......
-
McKenna v. Grunbaum
... ... control of defendant (tenant), the question of his knowledge ... is one for jury. (Wheeler v. Sawyer, 219 Mass. 103, ... 106 N.E. 592.) ... The ... tenant (Studebakers) had possession of the building and ... retained possession ... ...
-
Sneckner v. Feingold
...was pulled forward three quarters of an inch and was high enough above the step to catch the plaintiff's low heel. See also Wheeler v. Sawyer, 219 Mass. 103. In v. R. D. A. Realty Co. 301 Mass. 505 , the nosing was raised high enough to admit fingers under it. In Loundon v. Beaulieu, 277 Ma......