Puffer v. Inhabitants of Orange

122 Mass. 389, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 139
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 12, 1877·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The law which governs this case is well settled by the decisions of this court. A town is bound to erect barriers or railings, where a dangerous place is in such close proximity to the highway as to make travelling on the highway unsafe. Stevens v. Boxford, 10 Allen, 25. Babson v. Rockport, 101 Mass. 93. Britton v. Cummington, 107 Mass. 347. But it is not bound to do so, to prevent travellers from straying from the highway, although there is a dangerous place, at some distance from the highway, which they may reach by so straying. Sparhawk v. Salem, 1 Allen, 30. Adams v. Natick, 13 Allen, 429. Murphy v. Gloucester, 105 Mass. 470. Commonwealth v. Wilmington, 105 Mass. 599. Warner v. Holyoke, 112 Mass. 362. In the case at bar, there was no dangerous place, and no defect or want of sufficient railing, where the plaintiff’s horse left the highway; and the dangerous place where the accident happened was reached by passing some distance over a level space, and was at a spot not in or contiguous to the highway, and which the town was not bound to guard by a railing or barrier.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Puffer v. Inhabitants of Orange, 122 Mass. 389, 1877 Mass. LEXIS 139 (Mass. 1877).

122 Mass. 389 (Puffer v. Inhabitants of Orange) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nicholson v. City of Des Moines
60 N.W.2d 240 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1953)
Birckhead v. Mayor of Baltimore
197 A. 615 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1938)
City of Birmingham v. Cox
159 So. 818 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
City of Beaumont v. Kane
33 S.W.2d 234 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Evins
13 Tenn. App. 57 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1930)
City of Picher v. Barrett
1926 OK 785 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Sedita v. Steinberg
134 A. 243 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1926)
Morris, Adm'r. v. Langley Mills
113 S.E. 632 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Smith v. Town of Milford
92 A. 675 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1914)
City of Hannibal v. Campbell
86 F. 297 (Eighth Circuit, 1898)
Scannal v. City of Cambridge
39 N.E. 790 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)
Hudson v. Inhabitants of Marlborough
28 N.E. 147 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1891)
Harwood v. Inhabitants of Oakham
25 N.E. 625 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Wallace v. Wilmington & N. R.
18 A. 818 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1889)
Barnes v. Inhabitants of Chicopee
138 Mass. 67 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1884)
Knowlton v. Pittsfield
62 N.H. 535 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1883)
Drew v. Town of Sutton
55 Vt. 586 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1882)
Daily v. City of Worcester
131 Mass. 452 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)
Harris v. Inhabitants of Newbury
128 Mass. 321 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)