Jennings v. Tompkins

62 N.E. 265, 180 Mass. 302, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1073
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 62 N.E. 265 (Jennings v. Tompkins) 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
Jennings v. Tompkins, 62 N.E. 265, 180 Mass. 302, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1073 (Mass. 1902).

Opinion

Loring, J.

The plaintiff in this case had purchased a seat in the fourth row of the gallery in the defendant’s theatre, and while walking down the wooden steps of the aisle to go out, he fell and seriously injured his knee. He testified that he felt the stair give slightly, that his heel caught and that he fell face downwards. The plaintiff also introduced evidence that the tread of the stair in question was made of a seven eighths inch board; that it did not project beyond the riser on which it rested; that it was worn thin by use, and that there was a nail protruding about one sixteenth of an inch; that the board gave a little when stepped on, and that when a person stepped on the tread, the nail stuck up about three sixteenths of an inch. We think that a jury would be authorized in finding that the plaintiff’s heel caught on this nail.

This case, therefore, presents the general question how far a boai’d can be allowed to be worn down by use without its being a defect as against persons who have a right to use it. The line must be drawn somewhere, and it is necessarily to some [303]*303extent an arbitrary matter where it is to be drawn. We are of opinion that if the board is worn so that a nail projects three sixteenths of an inch there is not a defect.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Arruda v. Newport Construction Corporation
Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2023
J. J. Newberry Co. v. Crandall
171 F.2d 281 (Ninth Circuit, 1948)
McCollum v. United Markets, Inc.
80 N.E.2d 29 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Sneckner v. Feingold
51 N.E.2d 118 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Foote v. Waltham Netoco Theatres, Inc.
8 Mass. App. Div. 19 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1943)
Bergstresser v. Minnesota Amusement Co.
5 N.W.2d 49 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1942)
Callahan v. Jordan Marsh Co.
2 Mass. App. Dec. 39 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1941)
Shwartz v. Feinberg
28 N.E.2d 249 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
McGregor v. Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprises, Inc.
195 So. 624 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1940)
Marulli v. Town of Lexington
4 Mass. App. Div. 53 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Pastrick v. S. S. Kresge Co.
192 N.E. 485 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Frappier v. Lincoln Stores, Inc.
180 N.E. 522 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Murray v. Lincoln
179 N.E. 171 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Loudon v. Beaulieu
177 N.E. 806 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
Solomon v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
176 N.E. 810 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
De Mars v. Heathman
286 P. 144 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1930)
Milano v. Wasserman
150 N.E. 835 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Labrie v. Donham
243 Mass. 584 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Johnson v. Fainstein
219 Mass. 537 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 N.E. 265, 180 Mass. 302, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennings-v-tompkins-mass-1902.