Dilworth v. Boston Garden-Arena Corp.

162 N.E.2d 18, 339 Mass. 779
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 5, 1959
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 N.E.2d 18 (Dilworth v. Boston Garden-Arena Corp.) 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
Dilworth v. Boston Garden-Arena Corp., 162 N.E.2d 18, 339 Mass. 779 (Mass. 1959).

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort for injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a patron, when he slipped and fell because of an accumulation of waxed paper cups and liquids spilt therefrom in an aisle of the defendant’s sports arena. The case was heard upon the report of an auditor whose findings were not final and upon oral evidence before a judge without a jury. The auditor found that the defendant was negligent and that the plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence. The judge found for the plaintiff in the sum of 81,118.87 in accordance with the report. He properly denied the defendant’s motions to strike out certain designated portions of the auditor’s report for none of them was irrelevant, conjectural or a mere conclusion of law not warranted by the facts found, as the defendant contended. The denial of the motion for a directed verdict for the defendant had no place at a jury waived trial, and there was no error even if we consider the motion as a request for a ruling in favor of the defendant. The defendant was obliged to use ordinary care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition, having regard to the construction of the place, the character of the entertainment given and the customary conduct of persons attending. Constantine v. Proven Pictures of Boston, Inc. 338 Mass. 463, 464, and cases cited. It could have been found that by the exercise of ordinary care the accumulation of waxed paper cups and liquids should have been discovered and remedied. The fact that the plaintiff had seen the accumulation prior to his fall did not require a holding that he was contributorily negligent. Correira v. Atlantic Amusement Co. Inc. 302 Mass. 81, 83. Mello v. Peabody, 305 Mass. 373, 375. Hayes v. Boston Fish Mkt. Corp. 319 Mass. 556, 559. Constantine v. Proven Pictures of Boston, Inc. 338 Mass. 463, 464.

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

Related

Oliveri v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
292 N.E.2d 863 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1973)
Rousell v. Kapsaliarsis
35 Mass. App. Dec. 139 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1966)
Connolly v. Boston Garden-Arena Corp.
33 Mass. App. Dec. 97 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1965)
Hercules Powder Company v. Jesse Costa, Jr.
289 F.2d 571 (First Circuit, 1961)
Sneed v. Lidman
172 N.E.2d 836 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 N.E.2d 18, 339 Mass. 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dilworth-v-boston-garden-arena-corp-mass-1959.