Drainville v. Follett

Superior Court of Rhode Island

Drainville v. Follett

5 R.I. Dec. 36

CourtSuperior Court of Rhode Island

DecidedOctober 30, 1928

DocketNo. 73147

StatusPublished

This text of 5 R.I. Dec. 36 (Drainville v. Follett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drainville v. Follett, 5 R.I. Dec. 36 (R.I. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

BLODGETT, J.

Heard upon defendant’s motion for a new trial after verdict of a jury for plaintiff for $1,000.

Action against 'City of Woonsocket for failure to keep a manhole in repair at corner of Elm and Gaulin Streets.

The testimony of plaintiff was that his injuries were received when his right foot slipped into this manhole by reason of a 'break in the edge of the cover.

There was testimony that the cover was 'broken and had remained in a dangerous condition for more than 24 hours previous to the accident. One witness, Alfred W. Schatz, testified to seeing a crack in this cover three days previous to the accident. On behalf of the defendant several persons living in the neighborhod testified they had never seen this break in the cover, although frequently passing the location. One of the employees of the sewer department of Woonsocket testified to observing a crack in this cover the morning following the accident and replacing the same with a new cover.

Motion for new trial denied.

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

BLODGETT, J.

Heard upon defendant’s motion for a new trial after verdict of a jury for plaintiff for $1,000.

Action against 'City of Woonsocket for failure to keep a manhole in repair at corner of Elm and Gaulin Streets.

The testimony of plaintiff was that his injuries were received when his right foot slipped into this manhole by reason of a 'break in the edge of the cover.

There was testimony that the cover was 'broken and had remained in a dangerous condition for more than 24 hours previous to the accident. One witness, Alfred W. Schatz, testified to seeing a crack in this cover three days previous to the accident. On behalf of the defendant several persons living in the neighborhod testified they had never seen this break in the cover, although frequently passing the location. One of the employees of the sewer department of Woonsocket testified to observing a crack in this cover the morning following the accident and replacing the same with a new cover.

Motion for new trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 R.I. Dec. 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drainville-v-follett-risuperct-1928.