Fuller v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Fuller v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

196 N.E.2d 188, 346 Mass. 782

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 196 N.E.2d 188 (Fuller v. Metropolitan Transit Authority) 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

Fuller v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 196 N.E.2d 188, 346 Mass. 782 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The evidence most favorable to the , plaintiff is that at 6:15 p.m. on a cold and windy day during a heavy snow storm he entered the defendant’s Devonshire Street station in Boston, descended the steps while holding onto the right handrail, and had reached the third or fourth step from the bottom when he stepped on an object which felt like “half a hard rubber ball,” but appeared to be ice under snow. He fell and was injured. After a verdict for the plaintiff, the judge under leave reserved entered a verdict for the defendant. There was no error. Whatever the substance may have been, there was no evidence that it had been on the step long enough so that the employees of the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered it and removed it. Reardon v. Boston Elev. Ry. 311 Mass. 228, 230, and eases cited.

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

Exceptions overruled. The evidence most favorable to the , plaintiff is that at 6:15 p.m. on a cold and windy day during a heavy snow storm he entered the defendant’s Devonshire Street station in Boston, descended the steps while holding onto the right handrail, and had reached the third or fourth step from the bottom when he stepped on an object which felt like “half a hard rubber ball,” but appeared to be ice under snow. He fell and was injured. After a verdict for the plaintiff, the judge under leave reserved entered a verdict for the defendant. There was no error. Whatever the substance may have been, there was no evidence that it had been on the step long enough so that the employees of the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered it and removed it. Reardon v. Boston Elev. Ry. 311 Mass. 228, 230, and eases cited.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.E.2d 188, 346 Mass. 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-metropolitan-transit-authority-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack