Huard v. Eastern States Exposition

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Huard v. Eastern States Exposition

277 N.E.2d 703, 360 Mass. 872

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 4, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 277 N.E.2d 703 (Huard v. Eastern States Exposition) 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

Huard v. Eastern States Exposition, 277 N.E.2d 703, 360 Mass. 872 (Mass. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort for bodily injuries and consequential damages resulting from a fall caused by a defective sidewalk on premises owned and controlled by the State of Connecticut within the defendant’s fairgrounds. The case was transferred to a District Court, and the Appellate Division dismissed a report after a finding for the defendant. The case was then retransferred to the Superior Court and tried without a jury on the draft report as a statement of agreed facts. The judge found that the plaintiff wife bought a ticket from the defendant entitling her to visit the premises in question, and that there was no evidence that she was told or should have inferred that the premises were not in the defendant’s control. The defendant’s exceptions were specifically directed to the judge’s rulings on control. In view of the scope of the invitation embodied in the ticket, control was unnecessary. There was no error. Barron v. McLellan Stores Co. 310 Mass. 778, 783-784. Rouillard v. Canadian Klondike Club, Inc. 316 Mass. 11, 12-13. Collins v. Croteau, 322 Mass. 291, 294. Compare Sherman v. Texas Co. 340 Mass. 606, 608-609; Buck v. Clauson’s Inn at Coonamessett, Inc. 349 Mass. 612, 615. See Restatement 2d: Torts, § 415 and comment b.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is an action of tort for bodily injuries and consequential damages resulting from a fall caused by a defective sidewalk on premises owned and controlled by the State of Connecticut within the defendant’s fairgrounds. The case was transferred to a District Court, and the Appellate Division dismissed a report after a finding for the defendant. The case was then retransferred to the Superior Court and tried without a jury on the draft report as a statement of agreed facts. The judge found that the plaintiff wife bought a ticket from the defendant entitling her to visit the premises in question, and that there was no evidence that she was told or should have inferred that the premises were not in the defendant’s control. The defendant’s exceptions were specifically directed to the judge’s rulings on control. In view of the scope of the invitation embodied in the ticket, control was unnecessary. There was no error. Barron v. McLellan Stores Co. 310 Mass. 778, 783-784. Rouillard v. Canadian Klondike Club, Inc. 316 Mass. 11, 12-13. Collins v. Croteau, 322 Mass. 291, 294. Compare Sherman v. Texas Co. 340 Mass. 606, 608-609; Buck v. Clauson’s Inn at Coonamessett, Inc. 349 Mass. 612, 615. See Restatement 2d: Torts, § 415 and comment b.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 N.E.2d 703, 360 Mass. 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huard-v-eastern-states-exposition-mass-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack