Woods v. Boston

• Decision Date: 22 November 1876
• Parties: Mary J. Woods v. City of Boston
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

121 Mass. 337

Mary J. Woods v. City of Boston

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 22, 1876

Suffolk. Tort for personal injuries sustained by reason of a defect in a highway, which the defendant was bound to keep in repair.

At the trial in this court, before Lord, J., it appeared that, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff, who lived in East Boston, was walking, on her way to take the ferry at the foot of Eastern Avenue; that she came down Fleet Street, crossed Commercial Street, and stepped upon the brick sidewalk at or near the corner of Eastern Avenue; that she then thought she saw her husband upon Commercial Street in a northerly direction, and took a few steps upon Commercial Street in that direction, but, becoming convinced she was in error, she turned around, retraced her steps to the corner of Eastern Avenue, turned the corner, took a few steps down Eastern Avenue, stepped into the alleged defect, fell, and injured her ankle; that this happened at about five o'clock in the afternoon of a bright and pleasant day, there being no snow or ice upon the sidewalk, which was about ten feet in width. The evidence as to the size and nature of the alleged defect, and of its position on the sidewalk, was conflicting.

The plaintiff, in answer to the question whether she knew of any reason why she did not see the place into which she stepped testified as follows: "I don't know any reason why except I did n't expect it was there. I was n't looking at the sidewalk. I suppose I was looking at the ferry. It is most natural, if I was looking at it, I would most likely see it." She also testified: "If I had been looking on the sidewalk for the hole, I would have stepped past it. I don't think, if I saw it, I should have gone into it. I can't say why I was not looking at the sidewalk. I know I was n't looking for an accident or expecting it, until it came on to me. It came on to me like an earthquake."

The defendant requested the judge to rule that there was no evidence of due care on the part of the plaintiff at the time she met with the accident. The judge declined to give this instruction, but submitted the case to the jury under general instructions as to what would constitute due care, to which no exception was taken. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

R. M Morse, Jr. & C. P. Greenough, for the defendant.

J. E....