Barney v. City of Lowell

98 Mass. 570
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by47 cases

This text of 98 Mass. 570 (Barney v. City of Lowell) 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
Barney v. City of Lowell, 98 Mass. 570 (Mass. 1868).

Opinion

Foster, J.

This court has already decided that a municipal corporation is not liable in damages for an injury sustained by the carelessness of a laborer employed by a highway surveyor in repairing a highway. In the case adjudged, the laborer carelessly drove a horse and cart so that they came into collision with the plaintiff. Walcott v. Swampscott, 1 Allen, 101. In the case at bar, the negligence imputed to the driver consisted in walking too far behind his horses and leaving them without due care and guidance while he was engaged in conversation.

The principle established by the authorities is, that the duty of keeping public ways in repair is one imposed upon all towns and cities alike, as a public duty from the performance of which they derive no special advantage in their corporate capacity; and that the agents selected to execute this duty in obedience to the law of the Commonwealth are to be regarded as public officers rather than as the servants or agents of the municipal corporation by which they are employed. The relation of master and servant does not exist, and the maxim respondeat superior does not apply. White v. Phillipston, 10 Met. 108. Bigelow v. Randolph, 14 Gray, 543. Hafford v. New Bedford, 16 Gray,

. Child v. Boston, 4 Allen, 52. In our opinion the superin tendent of streets in the city of Lowell occupies the same position, in this respect, as an ordinary highway surveyor or a party [572]*572in the employment of such a surveyor. By the charter of Lowell, the city council may provide for the appointment or election of all officers necessary for the good government of the city not otherwise provided for, prescribe their duties and fix their compensation, and cause any street or streets, public places or squares, in the city, to be graded, paved, macadamized or repaired. St. 1836, c. 128, § 9. By the city ordinances, c. 20, § l,.the superintendent of streets and three highway surveyors are chosen annually by concurrent vote of both branches of the city council. The superintendent’s duties are fully defined in c. 11, § 2. He is to keep the streets in a safe condition for travel, attend to the repairs of the same, and make all contracts for the supply of ordinary labor and materials therefor, under the direction of the highway surveyors or joint committee on streets. These provisions constitute a system for the performance of the municipal duties as to highways which the general laws devolve upon this city in common with all other cities and towns in the Commonwealth. No distinction has been suggested at the bar, and we can discover none that is substantial, between this case and those heretofore determined. On the report there must be Judgment for the defendants

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

Related

Wilson v. City of Laramie
199 P.2d 119 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1948)
Ryder v. City of Taunton
27 N.E.2d 742 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Brunco v. Ryan
4 Mass. App. Div. 24 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Orgeron v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
140 So. 282 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1932)
City of Wooster v. Arbenz
156 N.E. 210 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1927)
Fisher v. Delaware Township
125 P. 94 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1912)
Smith v. City of Gloucester
87 N.E. 626 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1909)
Johnson v. City of Somerville
81 N.E. 268 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Moynihan v. Todd
74 N.E. 367 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
O'Brien v. Derry
60 A. 843 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1905)
Tyler v. Inhabitants of Revere
66 N.E. 597 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
McFadden v. Incorporated Town of Jewell
60 L.R.A. 401 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Colwell v. City of Waterbury
57 L.R.A. 218 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1902)
Bowden v. City of Rockland
51 A. 815 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1902)
Butman v. City of Newton
60 N.E. 401 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Russell v. City of Tacoma
35 P. 605 (Washington Supreme Court, 1894)
City of Kansas City v. Lemen
57 F. 905 (Eighth Circuit, 1893)
Kingman
12 L.R.A. 417 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Hennessey v. City of New Bedford
26 N.E. 999 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Proprietors of Pasture v. Inhabitants of Ipswich
26 N.E. 239 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Mass. 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barney-v-city-of-lowell-mass-1868.