Mendum v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Mendum v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

307 N.E.2d 16, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 873

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 307 N.E.2d 16 (Mendum v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority) 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

Mendum v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 307 N.E.2d 16, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 873 (Mass. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In this action of tort the plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries sustained as a result of a fall while ascending an escalator operated by the defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (M.B.T.A.). The plaintiffs exceptions are to the allowance of directed verdicts for the M.B.T.A. and for the defendant Otis Elevator Company which maintained and repaired the escalator under the supervision of the M.B.T.A. The case is before us on the plaintiffs outline bill of exceptions which reveals no evidence of specific acts or omissions constituting negligence on the part of either defendant. The plaintiff asserts that this is a case for the application of the doctrine formerly denominated res ipsa loquitur applicable only where the plaintiff sustains the burden of showing that under the circumstances, according to ordinary experience, the accident would not have happened except for the negligence of the defendant. Boyle v. Cambridge Gas Light Co. 331 Mass. 56, 63 (1954). Ginsberg v. Metropolitan Transit Authy. 333 Mass. 514, 516 (1956). Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co. Inc. 339 Mass. 177, 179-180 (1959). The erratic behavior of the escalator suggests causes not shown to be within the exclusive control of the defendants as, for example, manipulation of its movement by unauthorized persons. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs burden has been sustained particularly where, as here, the entire transcript has not been filed (Appeals Court Rule 1:22 [4] [1972J) and the bill of exceptions does not state that it contains all the evidence material to the question presented. Gurll v. Massasoit Greyhound Assn. Inc. 325 Mass. 76, 77 (1949). Schnepel v. Kidd, 332 Mass. 137, 138 (1954). Ginsburg v. Gross, 334 Mass. 709 (1956). On this evidence we cannot say that this case required its submission to the jury. Cf. Swistak v. Paradis, 288 Mass. 377, 380(1934).

Exceptions overruled.

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

In this action of tort the plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries sustained as a result of a fall while ascending an escalator operated by the defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (M.B.T.A.). The plaintiffs exceptions are to the allowance of directed verdicts for the M.B.T.A. and for the defendant Otis Elevator Company which maintained and repaired the escalator under the supervision of the M.B.T.A. The case is before us on the plaintiffs outline bill of exceptions which reveals no evidence of specific acts or omissions constituting negligence on the part of either defendant. The plaintiff asserts that this is a case for the application of the doctrine formerly denominated res ipsa loquitur applicable only where the plaintiff sustains the burden of showing that under the circumstances, according to ordinary experience, the accident would not have happened except for the negligence of the defendant. Boyle v. Cambridge Gas Light Co. 331 Mass. 56, 63 (1954). Ginsberg v. Metropolitan Transit Authy. 333 Mass. 514, 516 (1956). Evangelio v. Metropolitan Bottling Co. Inc. 339 Mass. 177, 179-180 (1959). The erratic behavior of the escalator suggests causes not shown to be within the exclusive control of the defendants as, for example, manipulation of its movement by unauthorized persons. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs burden has been sustained particularly where, as here, the entire transcript has not been filed (Appeals Court Rule 1:22 [4] [1972J) and the bill of exceptions does not state that it contains all the evidence material to the question presented. Gurll v. Massasoit Greyhound Assn. Inc. 325 Mass. 76, 77 (1949). Schnepel v. Kidd, 332 Mass. 137, 138 (1954). Ginsburg v. Gross, 334 Mass. 709 (1956). On this evidence we cannot say that this case required its submission to the jury. Cf. Swistak v. Paradis, 288 Mass. 377, 380(1934).

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 N.E.2d 16, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendum-v-massachusetts-bay-transportation-authority-massappct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack