Briggs v. New Bedford Amusement Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Briggs v. New Bedford Amusement Co.

51 N.E.2d 779, 315 Mass. 84, 1943 Mass. LEXIS 908

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 30, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 51 N.E.2d 779 (Briggs v. New Bedford Amusement 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

Briggs v. New Bedford Amusement Co., 51 N.E.2d 779, 315 Mass. 84, 1943 Mass. LEXIS 908 (Mass. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Cox, J.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in her action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries. Thereafter, under leave reserved, the trial judge allowed a motion for entry of a verdict for the defendant. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 120. The plaintiff’s exception to the allowance of this motion presents the only question. -

The jury could have found that the plaintiff and her sister were invitees in the defendant’s theatre. They occupied adjoining seats, the plaintiff’s sister sitting next to the aisle. As they were leaving, the sister stepped into the aisle, leaving her seat down, -and as the plaintiff was pass[85]*85ing this seat, she felt something prick her right leg as it came in contact with the woodwork which is about one half inch in thickness and frames or boxes the seat. There were no immediate signs of objective injury, but, op the following day, a splinter, which was between one half and three fourths of an inch in length and about the thickness of a needle or thread, was removed from the plaintiff’s leg. The plaintiff notified the defendant’s manager of her injury on the day that the splinter was removed, and showed him “about” where she had been sitting. The manager examined the seats next to the aisle at the place indicated and testified that the wood around them was not perfectly even and smooth. In answer to the question: “There was some indication that particles of the wood had been broken away from the original piece at some time?” he replied, “Maybe at some time, but it was like little nicks.”

The defendant’s duty to the plaintiff as an invitee need not be repeated. See Keenan v. E. M. Loew’s, Inc. 302 Mass. 309, 311; Cheetham v. Crescent Gardens Operating Co. 311 Mass. 320. ¡The defendant was not an insurer of the plaintiff’s safety. The vital question in the case is whether upon the evidence it could have been found that the condition of the seat in question was such that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been discovered by the defendant before the plaintiff received her injury.

There is no suggestion in the evidence that the construction of the seat was improper or that seats like it were not in general use in theatres, see Lord v. Sherer Dry Goods Co. 205 Mass. 1, 2-3; Rynn v. Fox-New England Theatres, Inc. 299 Mass. 258; Sterns v. Highland Hotel Co. 307 Mass. 90, 93, or that the condition of the seat, in relation to the splinter, was anything more than transitory and of recent origin. Compare Keenan v. E. M. Loew’s, Inc. 302 Mass. 309, 310, 312; McGillivray v. Eramian, 309 Mass. 430, 431. The description of the splinter, as it is called, does not serve to indicate the length of time it had been there. Cheetham v. Crescent Gardens Operating Co. 311 Mass. 320, 321, and cases cited. See Mucha v. Northeastern Crushed [86]*86Stone Co. Inc. 307 Mass. 592, 595. Moreover, the evidence that on the day after the plaintiff was injured the wood around the seats that were examined by the defendant’s manager was not perfectly even and smooth and had an appearance “like little nicks” is not in our opinion sufficient to warrant a finding that a splintered condition of the seat where the plaintiff was injured had existed long enough so that a reasonably diligent proprietor of a theatre should have known of its existence. See Bell v. Dorchester Theatre Co. 308 Mass. 118.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Cox, J.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in her action of tort to recover damages for personal injuries. Thereafter, under leave reserved, the trial judge allowed a motion for entry of a verdict for the defendant. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, § 120. The plaintiff’s exception to the allowance of this motion presents the only question. -

The jury could have found that the plaintiff and her sister were invitees in the defendant’s theatre. They occupied adjoining seats, the plaintiff’s sister sitting next to the aisle. As they were leaving, the sister stepped into the aisle, leaving her seat down, -and as the plaintiff was pass[85]*85ing this seat, she felt something prick her right leg as it came in contact with the woodwork which is about one half inch in thickness and frames or boxes the seat. There were no immediate signs of objective injury, but, op the following day, a splinter, which was between one half and three fourths of an inch in length and about the thickness of a needle or thread, was removed from the plaintiff’s leg. The plaintiff notified the defendant’s manager of her injury on the day that the splinter was removed, and showed him “about” where she had been sitting. The manager examined the seats next to the aisle at the place indicated and testified that the wood around them was not perfectly even and smooth. In answer to the question: “There was some indication that particles of the wood had been broken away from the original piece at some time?” he replied, “Maybe at some time, but it was like little nicks.”

The defendant’s duty to the plaintiff as an invitee need not be repeated. See Keenan v. E. M. Loew’s, Inc. 302 Mass. 309, 311; Cheetham v. Crescent Gardens Operating Co. 311 Mass. 320. ¡The defendant was not an insurer of the plaintiff’s safety. The vital question in the case is whether upon the evidence it could have been found that the condition of the seat in question was such that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been discovered by the defendant before the plaintiff received her injury.

There is no suggestion in the evidence that the construction of the seat was improper or that seats like it were not in general use in theatres, see Lord v. Sherer Dry Goods Co. 205 Mass. 1, 2-3; Rynn v. Fox-New England Theatres, Inc. 299 Mass. 258; Sterns v. Highland Hotel Co. 307 Mass. 90, 93, or that the condition of the seat, in relation to the splinter, was anything more than transitory and of recent origin. Compare Keenan v. E. M. Loew’s, Inc. 302 Mass. 309, 310, 312; McGillivray v. Eramian, 309 Mass. 430, 431. The description of the splinter, as it is called, does not serve to indicate the length of time it had been there. Cheetham v. Crescent Gardens Operating Co. 311 Mass. 320, 321, and cases cited. See Mucha v. Northeastern Crushed [86]*86Stone Co. Inc. 307 Mass. 592, 595. Moreover, the evidence that on the day after the plaintiff was injured the wood around the seats that were examined by the defendant’s manager was not perfectly even and smooth and had an appearance “like little nicks” is not in our opinion sufficient to warrant a finding that a splintered condition of the seat where the plaintiff was injured had existed long enough so that a reasonably diligent proprietor of a theatre should have known of its existence. See Bell v. Dorchester Theatre Co. 308 Mass. 118.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.E.2d 779, 315 Mass. 84, 1943 Mass. LEXIS 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briggs-v-new-bedford-amusement-co-mass-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack