Wright v. Perry
| Decision Date | 20 May 1905 |
| Citation | 188 Mass. 268,74 N.E. 328 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. PERRY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Elder & Whitman, Jas. Thos. Pugh, and H. Ware Barnum, for plaintiff.
Romney Spring and Arthur N. Rice, for defendant.
This is an action of tort for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by falling into an unguarded elevator well at 113 Franklin street, Boston, on Junuary 6, 1902. At the trial in the superior court the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
The first two exceptions have not been argued, and we treat them as waived.
The remaining exception is to the refusal of the judge at the close of the evidence to direct a verdict for the defendant. We are of opinion that the judge rightly refused to rule as requested, and that the case was properly submitted to the jury. The defendant was the lessee of the entire building in which the accident happened. He sublet the building to various tenants for business purposes, retaining control of the elevator and its approaches. Two iron tracks ran from Franklin street to a platform at the entrance of the elevator. This platform originally had a covering of iron which had become worn and loose, and had been removed some days before the accident. There was a hole in the wooden planks of the platform. The elevator well was protected by an automatic freight elevator gate, which rose when the elevator was in place for use and descended to bar the entrance when the elevator ascended. The plaintiff was a master teamster and part of his regular business was then, and for several years had been, to take goods to and from the Linen Thread Company, a corporation which occupied the basement and the first floor of the premises. On the day of the accident the plaintiff went with two of his teamsters to deliver a load of goods to the Linen Thread Company. One truck load of the goods was unloaded from the truck across the platform by the teamsters into the elevator, the plaintiff standing by and looking on. The plaintiff went for a second load, and came back with it, and noticed a case of paper for another tenant in the building lying across the platform. The plaintiff stepped onto the platform, and started to move the box of paper. One of his feet caught in the hole in the platform and he slipped. He stepped back with his other foot, supposing the elevator was in position for use, and fell into the elevator well. These are the general facts. There was also evidence that originally the elevator entrance had been closed with a sliding door. Some months before the accident this sliding door had been removed, and the gate put in. This gate was a second hand one, and there was evidence that the automatic arrangement did not work well; sometimes it would come down when the elevator went up, and sometimes it would not. There was evidence also of repeated complaints to the agent of the defendant, who had charge of his repairs, not only of the hole in the platform, but of the condition of the elevator gate.
1. There can be no doubt that the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial