Fein v. Gordon

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Fein v. Gordon

295 N.E.2d 172, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 818

DecidedApril 24, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 295 N.E.2d 172 (Fein v. Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fein v. Gordon, 295 N.E.2d 172, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 818 (Mass. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort brought by Sara R. Fein for personal injuries and by her husband for consequential damages. The case is here on the plaintiffs’ exceptions to the allowance of the defendant’s motion for directed verdicts. There was evidence that Mrs. Fein had been visiting her sister, a tenant in an apartment building in which the common areas were under the defendant’s control. On her way out she descended four stairs in a common area and on the bottom stair slipped on what “looked like and smelled like wax.” She also observed “wet, oily wax” on the floor to which she fell. There was evidence that the defendant’s employees washed and waxed common areas in frequent use, usually on a weekly basis. From this evidence and the photographs of the area, the jury could have found that this area was one in frequent use and that presence of the “wet, oily wax” was the result of improper application of wax by the defendant’s employees or of the defendant’s negligent invitation to walk on the floor before it was dry. Ventromile v. Malden Elec. Co. 317 Mass. 132, 135.

Exceptions sustained.

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

This is an action of tort brought by Sara R. Fein for personal injuries and by her husband for consequential damages. The case is here on the plaintiffs’ exceptions to the allowance of the defendant’s motion for directed verdicts. There was evidence that Mrs. Fein had been visiting her sister, a tenant in an apartment building in which the common areas were under the defendant’s control. On her way out she descended four stairs in a common area and on the bottom stair slipped on what “looked like and smelled like wax.” She also observed “wet, oily wax” on the floor to which she fell. There was evidence that the defendant’s employees washed and waxed common areas in frequent use, usually on a weekly basis. From this evidence and the photographs of the area, the jury could have found that this area was one in frequent use and that presence of the “wet, oily wax” was the result of improper application of wax by the defendant’s employees or of the defendant’s negligent invitation to walk on the floor before it was dry. Ventromile v. Malden Elec. Co. 317 Mass. 132, 135.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 N.E.2d 172, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fein-v-gordon-massappct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack