Gilland v. Maynes

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Gilland v. Maynes

104 N.E. 555, 216 Mass. 581, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1227

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 104 N.E. 555 (Gilland v. Maynes) 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

Gilland v. Maynes, 104 N.E. 555, 216 Mass. 581, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1227 (Mass. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Hammond, J.

There was evidence of the due care of the plaintiff. As to the negligence of the defendant, the evidence properly warranted findings by the jury that, although the defendant had let different parts of the building to different tenants at will, he nevertheless retained control of the outside of the building, including the roof and the gutters, and that upon him rested the responsibility as to repairs; that the gutter was negligently suffered by the defendant to be out of repair, so that the water flowed upon the sidewalk of a public street and there freezing rendered the walk dangerous to public travel and a nuisance; that the defendant knew or ought to have known this and that the plaintiff, while travel-ling thereon, was injured thereby. This makes a case for the [583]*583plaintiff. Marston v. Phipps, 209 Mass. 552, and cases cited. And this would be so even if the acts of children contributed to the nuisance. Field v. Gowdy, 199 Mass. 568, and cases cited.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Hammond, J.

There was evidence of the due care of the plaintiff. As to the negligence of the defendant, the evidence properly warranted findings by the jury that, although the defendant had let different parts of the building to different tenants at will, he nevertheless retained control of the outside of the building, including the roof and the gutters, and that upon him rested the responsibility as to repairs; that the gutter was negligently suffered by the defendant to be out of repair, so that the water flowed upon the sidewalk of a public street and there freezing rendered the walk dangerous to public travel and a nuisance; that the defendant knew or ought to have known this and that the plaintiff, while travel-ling thereon, was injured thereby. This makes a case for the [583]*583plaintiff. Marston v. Phipps, 209 Mass. 552, and cases cited. And this would be so even if the acts of children contributed to the nuisance. Field v. Gowdy, 199 Mass. 568, and cases cited.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 N.E. 555, 216 Mass. 581, 1914 Mass. LEXIS 1227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilland-v-maynes-mass-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack