Smith v. City of Lowell

1 N.E. 412, 139 Mass. 336, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 99
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMay 8, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 1 N.E. 412 (Smith v. City of Lowell) 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
Smith v. City of Lowell, 1 N.E. 412, 139 Mass. 336, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 99 (Mass. 1885).

Opinion

W. Allen, J.

We think that the last instruction asked for should have been given. It must be assumed, from the verdict and the finding of the jury, that the way was a private way, opened and dedicated to the public use, within the meaning of the Pub. Sts. e. 49, § 94; and that the only liability of the defendant was under § 95, which provides that “ the mayor and aider-men and selectmen or road commissioners shall, when the public safety demands it, direct and cause the entrances of such ways entering on and uniting with an existing public highway to be closed up, or may by other sufficient means caution the public against entering upon such ways; and if any such way is not closed, or if sufficient notice is not given that the same is dangerous, the city or town shall be liable for damages arising from defects therein in the same manner as if it had been duly laid out and established.”

Under this section, the condition of the liability of the defendant to persons entering upon the way, as the plaintiff did, from Bridge Street, was, that it had not closed the entrance from that street, nor given sufficient notice that the way was dangerous; [341]*341if it had done either, it would not be liable under the statute. A notice that the way was a private way, and was dangerous, so posted as to be conspicuous and legible to persons entering the way from Bridge Street, would be sufficient notice to such persons. We understand this to be the purport of the instruction ashed upon that matter.

We find no other error in the rulings excepted to.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Patel v. Planning Board of North Andover
539 N.E.2d 544 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1989)
Commonwealth v. A Juvenile
373 N.E.2d 1202 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1978)
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate
313 Mass. 779 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
Graves v. City of Springfield
3 Mass. App. Div. 321 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1938)
Teague v. City of Boston
179 N.E. 806 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1932)
Sullivan v. City of Worcester
121 N.E. 788 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Fitzgerald v. Lewis
41 N.E. 687 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 N.E. 412, 139 Mass. 336, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-city-of-lowell-mass-1885.