Sawyer v. City of Newburyport
Opinion
The only question is whether there was evidence sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to go to the jury.
The plaintiff contended that, in attempting to cross Temple Street, and in stepping from the sidewalk of Federal Street upon the crossing, she struck her heel against the first crossing stone; that it was higher than the edgestone of the sidewalk; that the grade was descending; and that there was a defect for which the city was responsible. There was some evidence from witnesses to show that the crossing stone was higher than the edgestone of the sidewalk, and that, as a piece of original con[431] strnction, it should be put upon a level, and, moreover, by request of the city, the jury were allowed to take a view of the premises; and, upon the whole, it appears plain that the plaintiff was entitled to have the jury pass upon the question whether there was an actionable defect.
If there was such defect, it might be inferred from the situation and the method of construction, and the want of evidence of any recent change of position of the stones, that the city had, or by the exercise of reasonable care might have had, notice of it.
The question whether the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care was also for the jury.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
32 N.E. 653 (Sawyer v. City of Newburyport) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.