Abraham v. E. H. Porter Construction Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Abraham v. E. H. Porter Construction Co.

235 N.E.2d 782, 354 Mass. 757, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 936

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 28, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 N.E.2d 782 (Abraham v. E. H. Porter Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abraham v. E. H. Porter Construction Co., 235 N.E.2d 782, 354 Mass. 757, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 936 (Mass. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

This case in which the jury found for the defendant should not have gone to the jury. There was evidence that the minor plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff) fell over a stick of new lumber at about 6 p.m. on October 10, 1961, while playing, pursuant to an implied general invitation, in the parking lot adjacent to a church. Three hundred feet away the defendant was building on the church property a rectory and had left there new lumber including sawed pieces. The defendant knew that children played in the churchyard and in the area where work was being performed. The judge ruled that the site of the accident was not part of the premises in the defendant’s control. The plaintiff’s case is rested on this view of the evidence. [758]*758The brief asserts that the place of injury was “far removed from the construction site.” The plaintiff, in tripping, fell into woods owned by the church adjacent to the parking lot and was cut on a broken bottle. Assuming without deciding that the bottle could have been found to have been broken and left by the defendant’s employees in the course of their lunch time activities, nevertheless in the circumstances their carelessness on their own time away from the construction site was not chargeable to their employer. Assuming, also without deciding, that the jury could have found that the stick of lumber came from the site, due care did not require that the defendant guard against the purloining of construction material not inherently dangerous. It was not a breach of duty to a child on other premises than the construction site to leave cut timber at the place of work. The excluded contract would not have shown negligence.

Albert P. Zabin for the plaintiffs. Edward R. Butterworth (Leon J. McEntee with him) for the defendant.

Plaintiffs’ exceptions overruled.

Defendant’s exceptions sustained.

Judgment for the defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This case in which the jury found for the defendant should not have gone to the jury. There was evidence that the minor plaintiff (hereinafter the plaintiff) fell over a stick of new lumber at about 6 p.m. on October 10, 1961, while playing, pursuant to an implied general invitation, in the parking lot adjacent to a church. Three hundred feet away the defendant was building on the church property a rectory and had left there new lumber including sawed pieces. The defendant knew that children played in the churchyard and in the area where work was being performed. The judge ruled that the site of the accident was not part of the premises in the defendant’s control. The plaintiff’s case is rested on this view of the evidence. [758]*758The brief asserts that the place of injury was “far removed from the construction site.” The plaintiff, in tripping, fell into woods owned by the church adjacent to the parking lot and was cut on a broken bottle. Assuming without deciding that the bottle could have been found to have been broken and left by the defendant’s employees in the course of their lunch time activities, nevertheless in the circumstances their carelessness on their own time away from the construction site was not chargeable to their employer. Assuming, also without deciding, that the jury could have found that the stick of lumber came from the site, due care did not require that the defendant guard against the purloining of construction material not inherently dangerous. It was not a breach of duty to a child on other premises than the construction site to leave cut timber at the place of work. The excluded contract would not have shown negligence.

Albert P. Zabin for the plaintiffs. Edward R. Butterworth (Leon J. McEntee with him) for the defendant.

Plaintiffs’ exceptions overruled.

Defendant’s exceptions sustained.

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 N.E.2d 782, 354 Mass. 757, 1968 Mass. LEXIS 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abraham-v-e-h-porter-construction-co-mass-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack