O'Neil v. City of Boston

153 N.E. 884, 257 Mass. 414, 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1365
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 17, 1926
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 153 N.E. 884 (O'Neil v. City of Boston) 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
O'Neil v. City of Boston, 153 N.E. 884, 257 Mass. 414, 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1365 (Mass. 1926).

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries. The declaration alleges that the plaintiff “was injured by reason of an accumulation of ice and snow, caused by a defect in the sidewalk . . . and that by reason of said defective condition of said sidewalk, she was thrown to the ground and injured.” The evidence [415]*415showed that the injury was sustained on the twenty-eighth day of January, 1923, and that in behalf of the plaintiff notice was sent by registered mail on February 7, 1923, addressed to the city clerk of the defendant. The notice when produced at the trial bore a stamped date of receipt by the city clerk on February 8, 1923. The substance of the notice was that the plaintiff was injured on a public highway “by reason of the accumulation of ice and snow, caused by a defect in said sidewalk.” The evidence showed that snow or ice on the sidewalk was a contributing cause to the injury. Newton v. Worcester, 169 Mass. 516; S. C. 174 Mass. 181. A condition precedent to the maintenance of action by the plaintiff was the giving of notice to the city “within ten days” after the injury. G. L. c. 84, § 18. Gay v. Cambridge, 128 Mass. 387. The notice in the case at bar, although mailed on the tenth day, was not received until the eleventh day after the injury. Under the statute notice must be received within the time limited. Mere mailing of the notice is not sufficient unless it was received within ten days. Shea v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 173 Mass. 177. McCarthy v. Dedham, 188 Mass. 204. McCord v. Masonic Casualty Co. 201 Mass. 473, 475. It becomes unnecessary to consider the other grounds raised.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Barca v. City of Worcester
9 Mass. L. Rptr. 87 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 1998)
Gyadu v. Prudential Property, No. 124556 (Apr. 7, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 3619 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Cincinnati Insurance v. South Carolina Second Injury Fund
377 S.E.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1989)
Grealish v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
1988 Mass. App. Div. 158 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1988)
Riley v. Abrams
412 A.2d 996 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1980)
Costello v. Board of Appeals of Lexington
333 N.E.2d 210 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1975)
Grubbs v. Prince George's County
297 A.2d 754 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1972)
Szczesny v. Vasquez
166 A.2d 834 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1960)
Byron v. Gibson
16 Mass. App. Dec. 172 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1958)
Maloney v. Waller
261 S.W.2d 418 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1953)
Albert M. Buskey v. City of Worcester
82 N.E.2d 236 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Rapid Motor Lines, Inc. v. Cox
56 A.2d 519 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1947)
Lamberti v. City of Stamford
40 A.2d 190 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1944)
Cakouns v. City of Cambridge
8 Mass. App. Div. 161 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1943)
Old Colony Railroad v. Assessors of Quincy
26 N.E.2d 313 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Regan v. Atlantic Refining Co.
23 N.E.2d 869 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Walsh v. Feinstein
175 N.E. 102 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1931)
United States v. Senecal
36 F.2d 388 (D. Massachusetts, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 N.E. 884, 257 Mass. 414, 1926 Mass. LEXIS 1365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneil-v-city-of-boston-mass-1926.