Gilbert v. City of Roxbury

100 Mass. 185
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Gray, J.

The circumstances under which ice may be considered a defect in the highway have been discussed in many recent cases. Stone v. Hubbardston, ante, 57, and cases cited. But the only one to which we need now particularly refer is that of Hutchins v. Boston. At the first argument of that case the court held that the mere fact that an ordinary sidewalk was slippery with ice was not sufficient to prove a defect in the highway. 12 Allen, 571, note. When the case came before [187] the full court a second time, it was decided that, if the ice was not only smooth and slippery, but had remained for some time, and by snow rain, hail and frost, and the dropping of water from the eaves, had been made of such a rounded and uneven shape that a person could not walk over it, using due care, without being in danger of falling down, a jury would be warranted in finding that it was a defect in the highway. 97 Mass. 272, note. This case cannot be distinguished from that as first presented to the court. The bill of exceptions shows, that there was proof that it was slippery everywhere in the vicinity; the person injured herself testified that there was nothing which caused her fall but the slipperiness of the ice, and that she did not think that the shape of the sidewalk had anything to do with the rounding of the ice on the walk at the time and place at which she fell; and no evidence whatever was introduced that there was any danger or defect which would not have existed if the sidewalk and the ice had been perfectly level. The jury were therefore rightly instructed that the city was not liable. Exceptions overruled

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

Gilbert v. City of Roxbury, 100 Mass. 185 (Mass. 1868).

100 Mass. 185 (Gilbert v. City of Roxbury) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. Hudson
58 S.E. 500 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Evans v. City of Concordia
85 P. 813 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
City of Chicago v. McDonald
111 Ill. App. 436 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Stamberger v. Cleveland
12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 42 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1901)
Stamberger v. City of Cleveland
22 Ohio C.C. 65 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1901)
Newton v. City of Worcester
54 N.E. 521 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Clark v. Howard
88 F. 199 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)
Smyth v. City of Bangor
72 Me. 249 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1881)
City of Quincy v. Barker
81 Ill. 300 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1876)
Darling v. Westmoreland
52 N.H. 401 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1872)