LaPlant v. City of Springfield

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

LaPlant v. City of Springfield

202 N.E.2d 916, 348 Mass. 774, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 976

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 2, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 202 N.E.2d 916 (LaPlant v. City of Springfield) 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

LaPlant v. City of Springfield, 202 N.E.2d 916, 348 Mass. 774, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 976 (Mass. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort for personal injuries resulting from a fall on a public way “known as the stairway of the Abbe Avenue Bridge in Springfield.” There was evidence of the following. The stairway was made of cement and the “northerly tip of the 14th step was missing . .. . [and] the missing tip . . . was irregular, at its maximum about 10" in length and about 2%" in width.” Two photographs were introduced in evidence. “Aside from the introduction of the photographs there was no evidence as to the length of time the defect was [775]*775there.” The sole issue before us is whether there was sufficient evidence from which the jury would be warranted in finding that the defendant “knew or in the exercise of proper care and diligence ought to have known of the defect in time to have remedied it.” Kelly v. Springfield, 328 Mass. 16. We have examined the photographs and conclude that it would be conjectural to infer from them the length of time the defect had existed. Compare Kelly v. Springfield, supra, 17-18; Hanson v. Worcester, 346 Mass. 51, 52-53. There was no error in the direction of a verdict for the defendant.

The case was submitted on briefs. Douglas R. Winniman for the plaintiff. James L. Allen, City Solicitor, & John J. O’Connor, Associate City Solicitor, for the defendant.

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

Exceptions overruled. This is an action of tort for personal injuries resulting from a fall on a public way “known as the stairway of the Abbe Avenue Bridge in Springfield.” There was evidence of the following. The stairway was made of cement and the “northerly tip of the 14th step was missing . .. . [and] the missing tip . . . was irregular, at its maximum about 10" in length and about 2%" in width.” Two photographs were introduced in evidence. “Aside from the introduction of the photographs there was no evidence as to the length of time the defect was [775]*775there.” The sole issue before us is whether there was sufficient evidence from which the jury would be warranted in finding that the defendant “knew or in the exercise of proper care and diligence ought to have known of the defect in time to have remedied it.” Kelly v. Springfield, 328 Mass. 16. We have examined the photographs and conclude that it would be conjectural to infer from them the length of time the defect had existed. Compare Kelly v. Springfield, supra, 17-18; Hanson v. Worcester, 346 Mass. 51, 52-53. There was no error in the direction of a verdict for the defendant.

The case was submitted on briefs. Douglas R. Winniman for the plaintiff. James L. Allen, City Solicitor, & John J. O’Connor, Associate City Solicitor, for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 N.E.2d 916, 348 Mass. 774, 1964 Mass. LEXIS 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laplant-v-city-of-springfield-mass-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack