Giles v. City of Boston

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Giles v. City of Boston

193 N.E.2d 697, 346 Mass. 767

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 31, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 193 N.E.2d 697 (Giles v. City of Boston) 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

Giles v. City of Boston, 193 N.E.2d 697, 346 Mass. 767 (Mass. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her as a result of a fall which occurred in a crosswalk on Atlantic Avenue opposite the South Station in Boston and which was due to a defect in the crosswalk which the defendant was bound to keep in repair. An auditor who found for the plaintiff also found “a hole in the road surface [where the plaintiff fell] about one foot long and about 1% inches deep with its sides all worn down” to be an actionable defect. The locus of the defect was owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the date of the accident as a result of a taking. The case is before us after a finding for the defendant by a judge of the Superior Court. There is no error in the finding nor in the judge’s rulings. The city was not obligated to repair the site of the plaintiff’s fall in ease of defect. See G. L. c. 81, § 18; G. L. c. 84, § 15.

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

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her as a result of a fall which occurred in a crosswalk on Atlantic Avenue opposite the South Station in Boston and which was due to a defect in the crosswalk which the defendant was bound to keep in repair. An auditor who found for the plaintiff also found “a hole in the road surface [where the plaintiff fell] about one foot long and about 1% inches deep with its sides all worn down” to be an actionable defect. The locus of the defect was owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the date of the accident as a result of a taking. The case is before us after a finding for the defendant by a judge of the Superior Court. There is no error in the finding nor in the judge’s rulings. The city was not obligated to repair the site of the plaintiff’s fall in ease of defect. See G. L. c. 81, § 18; G. L. c. 84, § 15.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 N.E.2d 697, 346 Mass. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giles-v-city-of-boston-mass-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack