Stanton v. City of Salem

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Stanton v. City of Salem

14 N.E. 519, 145 Mass. 476, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 335

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJanuary 4, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 14 N.E. 519 (Stanton v. City of Salem) 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

Stanton v. City of Salem, 14 N.E. 519, 145 Mass. 476, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 335 (Mass. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, O. J.

In an action brought under the Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 18, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show, not only a defect in a highway, but also that the defect was one which the proper officers either had knowledge of, or, by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, might have had knowledge of, in time to have remedied it or to have prevented the injury complained of. Hanscom v. Boston, 141 Mass. 242, and cases cited.

In the case at bar, the plaintiff was injured by stepping upon ice about two inches thick which had formed upon the sidewalk. If we assume this to have been a defect, there is no evidence in the case as to how it was formed, or how long it had existed. No witness saw it before the accident, and there was no evidence to show that any officer of the city either knew of it, or could, by reasonable diligence, have known of it, before the injury to the plaintiff. She failed to meet the burden of proving her case, and the court rightly directed a verdict for the defendant. Exceptions overruled.

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

Morton, O. J.

In an action brought under the Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 18, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show, not only a defect in a highway, but also that the defect was one which the proper officers either had knowledge of, or, by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, might have had knowledge of, in time to have remedied it or to have prevented the injury complained of. Hanscom v. Boston, 141 Mass. 242, and cases cited.

In the case at bar, the plaintiff was injured by stepping upon ice about two inches thick which had formed upon the sidewalk. If we assume this to have been a defect, there is no evidence in the case as to how it was formed, or how long it had existed. No witness saw it before the accident, and there was no evidence to show that any officer of the city either knew of it, or could, by reasonable diligence, have known of it, before the injury to the plaintiff. She failed to meet the burden of proving her case, and the court rightly directed a verdict for the defendant. Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.E. 519, 145 Mass. 476, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanton-v-city-of-salem-mass-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack