Corrigan v. Union Sugar Refinery

98 Mass. 577
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided January 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 34 cases

Opinion

Gray, J.

It is unnecessary in this case to consider whether, upon the facts offered to be proved, the way over the defendants’ [578]*578land, where the plaintiff received the injury sued for, was a public way; or whether, if it was not a public way, the defendants had so held it out as such, or otherwise induced the plaintiff to pass over it, as to make them responsible to him for any hole or defect therein, within the rule discussed in Sweeny v. Old Colony Railroad Co. 10 Allen, 368, and Gautret v. Egerton, Law Rep. 2 C. P. 371, cited for the defendants. The material question is, whether the keg fell upon the plaintiff’s head by reason of the negligence of the defendants’ servants. If it did, then, whether this was a public or a private way, and whether the plaintiff was passing over it in the exercise of a public right, or upon an express or implied invitation or inducement of the defendants, or by their mere permission, he was rightfully there, and may maintain this action. Even if he was there under a permission which they might at any time revoke, and under circumstances which did not make them responsible for any defect in the existing condition of the way, they were still liable for any negligent act of themselves or their servants, which increased the danger of passing and in fact injured him. Gallagher v. Humphrey, 6 Law Times, (N. S.) 684. Sullivan v. Waters, 14 Irish C. L. 474. Indermaur v. Dames, Law Rep. 1 C. P. 274. Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722. Stewart v. Harvard College, 12 Allen, 67.

Case to stand for trial.

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

Corrigan v. Union Sugar Refinery, 98 Mass. 577 (Mass. 1868).

98 Mass. 577 (Corrigan v. Union Sugar Refinery) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bowers v. Ottenad
729 P.2d 1103 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1986)
Messina v. Trustees of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
51 N.E.2d 312 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Roadman v. C. E. Johnson Motor Sales
297 N.W. 166 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1941)
Montague v. Burgerhoff
92 P.2d 98 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1939)
Wurm v. Perry
3 Mass. App. Div. 253 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1938)
Silva v. Henry & Close Co.
181 N.E. 228 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Statkunas v. L. Promboim & Son Inc.
174 N.E. 919 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Brigman v. . Construction Co.
136 S.E. 125 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Brigman v. Fiske-Carter Construction Co.
192 N.C. 791 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Burke v. Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Railway Co.
106 A. 353 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1919)
Sughrue v. Booth
121 N.E. 432 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Massaletti v. Fitzroy
118 N.E. 168 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1917)
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Means
104 N.E. 785 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1914)
Morrison v. Carpenter
146 N.W. 106 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Lucas v. Walker
134 P. 374 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Carnegie Steel Co. v. Rowan
20 Ohio C.C. Dec. 202 (Belmont Circuit Court, 1907)
Carnegie Steel Co. v. Rowan
10 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 329 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1907)
Patterson v. Kates
152 F. 481 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1907)
Cavanagh v. Block
77 N.E. 1027 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Rooney v. Woolworth
61 A. 366 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1905)