Mahoney v. Libbey

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Mahoney v. Libbey

123 Mass. 20, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 197

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 28, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 123 Mass. 20 (Mahoney v. Libbey) 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

Mahoney v. Libbey, 123 Mass. 20, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 197 (Mass. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The plaintiff relies on the duty of every owner of land to keep the buildings or structures thereon in such a condition that they shall not, by falling or otherwise, cause injury to property or persons lawfully upon adjoining land.

But assuming that this duty is absolute while the structures are in the condition in which the owner has put them, or knows or is bound to know them to be,' yet, when he has been guilty of no negligence, and the condition of the structures has been changed, so as to render them injurious or dangerous, by vis major, or the act of a third person, which the owner had no reason to anticipate, he cannot be held liable for the injury, or bound to make the structures safe, until he has had a reasonable time, after they have so become dangerous, to take the necessary [23]*23precaution. Nichols v. Marsland, L. R. 10 Ex. 255, and 2 Ex. D. 1. Gray v. Harris, 107 Mass. 492.

In the case at bar, there was no evidence that the defendants’ wall was dangerous or could have fallen while both buildings stood, or while both walls remained in the condition in which they were left by the fire, or that the defendants had notice, or' were bound to know, that the wall on the adjoining estate had been or was about to be removed; and the full court concurs with the justice who presided at the trial in the opinion that the evidence introduced was insufficient to support the action.

Judgment on the verdict for the defendants.

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

Gray, C. J.

The plaintiff relies on the duty of every owner of land to keep the buildings or structures thereon in such a condition that they shall not, by falling or otherwise, cause injury to property or persons lawfully upon adjoining land.

But assuming that this duty is absolute while the structures are in the condition in which the owner has put them, or knows or is bound to know them to be,' yet, when he has been guilty of no negligence, and the condition of the structures has been changed, so as to render them injurious or dangerous, by vis major, or the act of a third person, which the owner had no reason to anticipate, he cannot be held liable for the injury, or bound to make the structures safe, until he has had a reasonable time, after they have so become dangerous, to take the necessary [23]*23precaution. Nichols v. Marsland, L. R. 10 Ex. 255, and 2 Ex. D. 1. Gray v. Harris, 107 Mass. 492.

In the case at bar, there was no evidence that the defendants’ wall was dangerous or could have fallen while both buildings stood, or while both walls remained in the condition in which they were left by the fire, or that the defendants had notice, or' were bound to know, that the wall on the adjoining estate had been or was about to be removed; and the full court concurs with the justice who presided at the trial in the opinion that the evidence introduced was insufficient to support the action.

Judgment on the verdict for the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Mass. 20, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-v-libbey-mass-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack