Young v. City of Worcester

Decision Date16 October 1925
Citation149 N.E. 204,253 Mass. 481
PartiesYOUNG v. CITY OF WORCESTER.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester County; Burns, Judge.

Action of tort by Albert Edward Young, administrator, against the City of Worcester to recover for death of plaintiff's decedent, alleged to have been caused by a defective elevator in Worcester City Hospital. From an order of the Superior Court Sustaining demurrer to the declaration, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. A. Ryan, of Worcester, for appellant.

W. C. Mellish, of Worcester, for appellee.

PIERCE, J.

The case is before this court on an appeal from an order of the superior court sustaining the demurrer of the defendant to the declaration which follows:

‘Count 1. The plaintiff says that he is the duly appointed administrator of Marion M. Young, Deceased, who was killed January 13, 1924, by a defective elevator in the Worcester City Hospital. The plaintiff says, that, at the time of the acts and doings hereinafter set forth, the defendant was and is a municipal corporation, duly established by law in the county of Worcester, and was duly authorized by statute to accept, administer and carry out a certain trust for the operation of an institution in said Worcester, namely the Worcester City Hospital; that it undertake to so control and maintain and administer this hospital trust.

‘The plaintiff says that the defendant corporation, in the acceptance and exercise of this trust, selected and appointed a board of trustees to direct and administer said trust. And, that it elected, selected and appointed its superintendent of buildings and his assistants, to supervise, maintain and inspect the operation of all elevators, installed in said institution. That it was the duty of the defendant corporation to use due care and diligence in the selection and direction of said municipal agents and trustees as reasonable, capable, efficient and qualified men to exercise said offices and positions. That it was the further duty of the defendant corporation to reasonably supervise, direct and correct the work of said officers and agents.

‘That, in respect to the reasonable and careful performance of its duty as above described, the defendant corporation was negligent and careless. The negligence of the defendant and its careless disregard of its duty caused the death of the deceased, whose life was crushed out while a passenger on an elevator in said hospital.

‘Count 2. That the defendant corporation was grossly negligent in the supervision, attention and direction of its officers and agents, to whom were delegated the duty or trust to maintain, manage, inspect and operate said institution and were wantonly careless in its failure to direct or correct its officers, agents or appointees in their delinquencies, which gross negligence and wanton carelessness caused the death of said Marion M. Young by being crushed in an elevator installed in said City Hospital.

‘Both counts for $5,000.’

The demurrer in nine assignments of reasons sets forth that the matters in counts one and two of the declaration do not constitute a cause of action. The plaintiff very properly concedes he has no right to recover in damages for the death of his intestate caused by the negligence of the municipality's agents or servants.’

The maintenance of the Worcester City Hospital by the defendant, while permissive, is a matter of public service conducted exclusively and purely for the general and common good. In some cases the statutes enjoin such service upon cities and towns, and in others permit it. When such service has been entered upon, there is no good reason why a liability to private action should be imposed when a town or city voluntarily enters upon such a beneficial work, and withheld when it performs the service under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Hagerman v. City of Seattle
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1937
    ...257 Ky. 256, 77 S.W.(2d) 942; Benton v. Trustees of Boston City Hospital, 140 Mass. 13, 1 N.E. 836, 54 Am.Rep. 436; Young v. Worcester, 253 Mass. 481, 149 N.E. 204; Zummo v. Kansas City, 285 Mo. 222, 225 S.W. Prichard v. Board of Commissioners, 126 N.C. 908, 36 S.E. 353, 78 Am.St.Rep. 679; ......
  • Commonwealth v. Welansky
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1944
    ...239, 242, 130 N.E. 386;Id., 241 Mass. 100, 102, 134 N.E. 352; McIntyre v. Converse, 238 Mass. 592, 594, 131 N.E. 198;Young v. Worcester, 253 Mass. 481, 484, 149 N.E. 204;Potter v. Gilmore, 282 Mass. 49, 57, 184 N.E. 373, 87 A.L.R. 1462; Am.Law Inst.Restatement: Torts, § 500, comment g. For ......
  • Mortgage Corp. of N. J. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1955
    ...is substantially higher in magnitude than simple inadvertence, but falls short of intentional wrong. Young v. City of Worcester, 253 Mass. 481, 149 N.E. 204 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1925). Such is the genius of the expression here, the reason and spirit of the words used to declare the nature and scope ......
  • Commonwealth v. Welansky
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1944
    ...Falls Power & Electric Co. 238 Mass. 239 , 242; S. C. 241 Mass. 100 , 102. McIntyre v. Converse, 238 Mass. 592 , 594. Young v. Worcester, 253 Mass. 481 , 484. Potter v. Gilmore, 282 Mass. 49 , 57. Am. Law Restatement: Torts, Section 500, comment g. For many years this court has been careful......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT