Skenian v. Raymond's Inc.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Skenian v. Raymond's Inc.

211 N.E.2d 348, 349 Mass. 772, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 968

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 29, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 211 N.E.2d 348 (Skenian v. Raymond's Inc.) 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

Skenian v. Raymond's Inc., 211 N.E.2d 348, 349 Mass. 772, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 968 (Mass. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff, a business invitee of the defendant, was injured when she fell over the base of an electric fan six to eight feet in height. Three quarters of the base, which was eighteen to twenty-four inches in diameter, was located in a crowded passageway between two departments of the defendant’s store which was conducting a sale in both departments. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. The jury found for the plaintiff. There was no error. The plaintiff did not see the fan prior to her fall and the jury might have found that in the [773]*773crowded passageway she might not see it. They could also have found that locating the fan as it did the defendant failed to discharge its duty to the plaintiff and that there was no contributory negligence. Parker v. Jordan Marsh Co. 310 Hass. 227, 229. Burns v. Tedeschi’s Super Mkts. Inc. 347 Mass. 773. See Letiecq v. Denholm & McKay Co. 328 Mass. 120.

Robert I. Ectman for the defendant. John F. Kelley for the plaintiff.

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

Exceptions overruled. The plaintiff, a business invitee of the defendant, was injured when she fell over the base of an electric fan six to eight feet in height. Three quarters of the base, which was eighteen to twenty-four inches in diameter, was located in a crowded passageway between two departments of the defendant’s store which was conducting a sale in both departments. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. The jury found for the plaintiff. There was no error. The plaintiff did not see the fan prior to her fall and the jury might have found that in the [773]*773crowded passageway she might not see it. They could also have found that locating the fan as it did the defendant failed to discharge its duty to the plaintiff and that there was no contributory negligence. Parker v. Jordan Marsh Co. 310 Hass. 227, 229. Burns v. Tedeschi’s Super Mkts. Inc. 347 Mass. 773. See Letiecq v. Denholm & McKay Co. 328 Mass. 120.

Robert I. Ectman for the defendant. John F. Kelley for the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 N.E.2d 348, 349 Mass. 772, 1965 Mass. LEXIS 968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skenian-v-raymonds-inc-mass-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack