Krejmas v. Cumberland Farms Dairy Stores, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Krejmas v. Cumberland Farms Dairy Stores, Inc.

347 N.E.2d 690, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 811

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMay 25, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 347 N.E.2d 690 (Krejmas v. Cumberland Farms Dairy Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Krejmas v. Cumberland Farms Dairy Stores, Inc., 347 N.E.2d 690, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 811 (Mass. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

There was evidence from which the jury could find that the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice or snow which the defendant had negligently permitted to accumulate in the recessed entrance way to its store. The defendant was responsible for maintaining the entrance way in a reasonably safe condition for visitors’ use. Schallinger v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. 334 Mass. 386, 390 (1956). Whether because the entrance way was within the scope of the original declaration (the “defendant’s sidewalk”) or because there was no abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment to the declaration (compare Melanson v. Smith, 282 Mass. 85, 86-87 [1933]; Gallagher v. Wheeler, 292 Mass. 547, 550-552 [1935]; Coburn v. Moore, 320 Mass. 116, 123-124 [1946]; Koleshinski v. David, 328 Mass. 276, 281 [1952]; see also Pizer v. Hunt, 253 Mass. 321, 330-332 [1925]; Bucholz v. Green Bros. Co. 290 Mass. 350, 352-355 [1935]), the defendant’s claim of variance must fail. There was evidence which warranted a finding that the plaintiff’s wife delivered to the defendant a notice signed by the plaintiff, which, taken together with the notice introduced in evidence (see Roland v. Kilroy, 282 Mass. 87, 90 [1933]; Ajamian v. Watertown, 317 Mass. 242, 244 [1944]), satisfied the requirements of G. L. c. 84, § 21.

Judgment is to enter on the verdicts.

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

There was evidence from which the jury could find that the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice or snow which the defendant had negligently permitted to accumulate in the recessed entrance way to its store. The defendant was responsible for maintaining the entrance way in a reasonably safe condition for visitors’ use. Schallinger v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. 334 Mass. 386, 390 (1956). Whether because the entrance way was within the scope of the original declaration (the “defendant’s sidewalk”) or because there was no abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment to the declaration (compare Melanson v. Smith, 282 Mass. 85, 86-87 [1933]; Gallagher v. Wheeler, 292 Mass. 547, 550-552 [1935]; Coburn v. Moore, 320 Mass. 116, 123-124 [1946]; Koleshinski v. David, 328 Mass. 276, 281 [1952]; see also Pizer v. Hunt, 253 Mass. 321, 330-332 [1925]; Bucholz v. Green Bros. Co. 290 Mass. 350, 352-355 [1935]), the defendant’s claim of variance must fail. There was evidence which warranted a finding that the plaintiff’s wife delivered to the defendant a notice signed by the plaintiff, which, taken together with the notice introduced in evidence (see Roland v. Kilroy, 282 Mass. 87, 90 [1933]; Ajamian v. Watertown, 317 Mass. 242, 244 [1944]), satisfied the requirements of G. L. c. 84, § 21.

Judgment is to enter on the verdicts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 N.E.2d 690, 4 Mass. App. Ct. 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krejmas-v-cumberland-farms-dairy-stores-inc-massappct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack