Bushfan v. Gluck

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Bushfan v. Gluck

158 N.E.2d 132, 339 Mass. 772, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 912

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 1, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 158 N.E.2d 132 (Bushfan v. Gluck) 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

Bushfan v. Gluck, 158 N.E.2d 132, 339 Mass. 772, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 912 (Mass. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. There was evidence that the plaintiff on March 3, 1955, hired an apartment from the defendant. She observed a piano which had been abandoned in the apartment by a previous tenant. There was evidence also that the defendant had agreed to remove it. The plaintiff moved in on April 8, 1955. The piano had been partially dismantled; its front legs removed. It was leaning against the wall with the strings facing the room. On May 10, 1955, one of the plaintiff’s children, nineteen months of age, was [773]*773crushed to death when the piano toppled over. The judge properly directed a verdict for the defendant. Assuming that the defendant agreed to remove the piano, there was no evidence that the defendant or his agent undertook its removal or in fact that he did anything to cause it to fall. Conahan v. Fisher, 233 Mass. 234. Prushensky v. Pucilowski, 269 Mass. 477. Bergeron v. Forest, 233 Mass. 382. Cormier v. Weiner, 277 Mass. 518. Marcus v. Griggs, Inc. 334 Mass. 139.

William H. Diamond, for the plaintiff. Will J. Bangs, {Claude R. Branch with him,) for the defendant.

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

Exceptions overruled. There was evidence that the plaintiff on March 3, 1955, hired an apartment from the defendant. She observed a piano which had been abandoned in the apartment by a previous tenant. There was evidence also that the defendant had agreed to remove it. The plaintiff moved in on April 8, 1955. The piano had been partially dismantled; its front legs removed. It was leaning against the wall with the strings facing the room. On May 10, 1955, one of the plaintiff’s children, nineteen months of age, was [773]*773crushed to death when the piano toppled over. The judge properly directed a verdict for the defendant. Assuming that the defendant agreed to remove the piano, there was no evidence that the defendant or his agent undertook its removal or in fact that he did anything to cause it to fall. Conahan v. Fisher, 233 Mass. 234. Prushensky v. Pucilowski, 269 Mass. 477. Bergeron v. Forest, 233 Mass. 382. Cormier v. Weiner, 277 Mass. 518. Marcus v. Griggs, Inc. 334 Mass. 139.

William H. Diamond, for the plaintiff. Will J. Bangs, {Claude R. Branch with him,) for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 N.E.2d 132, 339 Mass. 772, 1959 Mass. LEXIS 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bushfan-v-gluck-mass-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack