Worden v. City of New Bedford
Decision Date | 08 April 1881 |
Citation | 131 Mass. 23 |
Parties | John Worden, Jr. v. City of New Bedford |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued October 30, 1879
Bristol. Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by falling through a trap-door in a room in a public building in the defendant city, known as the City Hall. Answer, a general denial. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham C. J., the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions, the substance of which appears in the opinion.
The case was argued at the bar, and was afterwards submitted on additional briefs, by F. A. Milliken, for the defendant, and E. L. Barney, for the plaintiff.
Exceptions overruled.
Under the instructions given them, the jury must have found that the city of New Bedford was the owner of a building known as the City Hall, used for the ordinary municipal purposes; that it had been accustomed to let it, for profit, for lectures exhibitions, amusements and other like purposes, having no relation to municipal affairs or interests; that at the time the injury happened to the plaintiff it had, acting by its committee on public property, let the hall and a smaller room adjoining, for profit, to the Southern Massachusetts Poultry Association; that the sum paid by the association included compensation for the lighting and heating the rooms and for the services of the janitor, who, by appointment of the city had the care of the building; that the plaintiff was injured solely by the carelessness of the janitor, while doing acts in the lighting and heating of the rooms; and that the plaintiff was rightfully in the rooms and using due care when he received the injury. These facts are sufficient to establish the liability of the city.
A city or town is not liable to a private citizen for an injury caused by any defect or want of repair in a city or town hall or other public building erected and used solely for municipal purposes, or for negligence of its agents in the management of such buildings. This is because it is not liable to private actions for omission or neglect to perform a corporate duty imposed by general laws upon all cities and towns alike, from the performance of which it derives no compensation.
But when a city or town does not devote such building exclusively to municipal uses, but lets it or a part of it for its own advantage and emolument, by receiving rents, or otherwise, it is liable while it is so let in the same manner as a private owner would be. Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489. Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Meridian v. Beeman
... ... Louis, 57 Miss. 326; Yazoo City v. Birchett, 89 ... Miss. 700; Oklahoma City v. Foster, [175 Miss. 533] ... 118 Okla. 120; Worden v. New Bedford, 131 Mass. 23, ... 41 Am. St. Rep. 185; Oliver v. Worehester, 102 Mass ... 489; Hill v. Boston, 122 Mass. 344; Workmen v ... New ... ...
-
State ex rel. City of Jefferson v. Smith
...829; Bates v. Bassett, 60 Vt. 530; Biddeford v. Yates, 104 Me. 506; Gottleib-Knabe & Co. v. Macklin, 109 Md. 429, 71 A. 949; Worden v. New Bedford, 131 Mass. 23. (f) The courts are inclined to construe these restrictions with great liberality in the interest of the public welfare and modern......
-
Aime Valcour v. Village of Morrisville
... ... 168, 170; Amble v ... Vermont A. P. Corp., 101 Vt. 448, 450, 451; Foxen v ... City of Santa Barbara, 134 P. 1142, 166 Cal. 77; ... Metropolitan Stock Ex. v. National Bank, 76 Vt ... of Montpelier , 60 Vt. 537, 15 A. 321, 1 L. R. A. 169. To ... the same effect are Worden v. New Bedford , ... 131 Mass. 23, 41 A. R. 185; Mayo v. Village Fire ... Co. , 96 Me. 539, ... ...
-
Nakdimen v. fort Smith & Van Buren Bridge District
...533; 69 Id. 284; 96 Id. 410; 103 Id. 452; Ib. 127; 104 Id. 425; Dillon, Mun. Corp., 884 (508); 32 L. R. A. 610; 44 N.E. 446; 30 A.D. 266; 131 Mass. 23; 40 Mass. 5. The amount of compensation is sufficient. HART, J. MCCULLOCH, C. J., dissenting. SMITH, J., concurs in this dissent. OPINION HA......