Reynolds v. Garst

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Reynolds v. Garst

54 A. 932, 25 R.I. 83, 1903 R.I. LEXIS 20

DecidedApril 1, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A. 932 (Reynolds v. Garst) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reynolds v. Garst, 54 A. 932, 25 R.I. 83, 1903 R.I. LEXIS 20 (R.I. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) This case was brought to recover for damages suffered by the plaintiff, a boy of about four years of age, from falling into an opening in the sidewalk opposite the defendant’s land and building. The opening was made by removing' a section of the walk, under which the cellar extended, for the purpose of carrying into the cellar materials to be used in setting machinery in the building. The setting up of this machinery was done by a contractor, and the principal ground of defence was that at the time of the accident the duty of guarding the opening devolved upon the contractor and not upon the owner of the building. Prima jade the duty to guard the opening was that of the owner, who was likewise the occupant of the building. The burden, therefore, of showing that at the time in question some other party was using the opening and had the care of it is upon the defendant.

We do not think that he has shown that such was the fact. His own testimony seems to be that the contractor had finished using the opening. The jury were justified in finding that the opening unguarded was dangerous, and that the plaintiff was *84 not guilty of contributory negligence in the premises; hence their verdict should not be disturbed.

Page & Page & Cushing, for plaintiff. Tillinghast & Murdock, for defendant.

New trial denied.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) This case was brought to recover for damages suffered by the plaintiff, a boy of about four years of age, from falling into an opening in the sidewalk opposite the defendant’s land and building. The opening was made by removing' a section of the walk, under which the cellar extended, for the purpose of carrying into the cellar materials to be used in setting machinery in the building. The setting up of this machinery was done by a contractor, and the principal ground of defence was that at the time of the accident the duty of guarding the opening devolved upon the contractor and not upon the owner of the building. Prima jade the duty to guard the opening was that of the owner, who was likewise the occupant of the building. The burden, therefore, of showing that at the time in question some other party was using the opening and had the care of it is upon the defendant.

We do not think that he has shown that such was the fact. His own testimony seems to be that the contractor had finished using the opening. The jury were justified in finding that the opening unguarded was dangerous, and that the plaintiff was *84 not guilty of contributory negligence in the premises; hence their verdict should not be disturbed.

Page & Page & Cushing, for plaintiff. Tillinghast & Murdock, for defendant.

New trial denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A. 932, 25 R.I. 83, 1903 R.I. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-garst-ri-1903.