Stellato v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Stellato v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.

271 N.E.2d 329, 359 Mass. 761

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJune 7, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 271 N.E.2d 329 (Stellato v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.) 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

Stellato v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 271 N.E.2d 329, 359 Mass. 761 (Mass. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff was surveying the defendant’s barn with the defendant’s permission with a view to making a bid for demolition work, and was injured in a fall from a ladder apparently placed in the barn by the defendant’s employees. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the case is here on the defendant’s exception to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. We assume that the plaintiff was a business invitee and that the defendant, owed him a duty to exercise reasonable care to provide him with safe appliances. Gauld v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. 329 Mass. 724, 726-727. The ladder was used to ascend to the upper level of the barn, and was placed on an inclined base. The plaintiff and his son went, safely up the ladder, and the son climbed safely down. Before descending, the plaintiff moved the ladder over about four inches to straighten it out, and as he put his weight on it the ladder twisted and he fell. There was no evidence that there was any danger before the plaintiff moved the ladder, or that any negligence before he moved it, contributed to the accident. In the absence of evidence of negligence, a verdict, should have been directed for the defendant. See McDonnell v. New York, N. H. & H. R.R. 192 Mass. 538, 542; Sjostedt v. Webster, 306 Mass. 344, 345; Bloom v. Warshaw, 332 Mass. 14, 17; Cohen v. Suburban Sidney-Hill, Inc. 343 Mass. 217, 219.

Exceptions sustained.

Judgment for the defendant.

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

The plaintiff was surveying the defendant’s barn with the defendant’s permission with a view to making a bid for demolition work, and was injured in a fall from a ladder apparently placed in the barn by the defendant’s employees. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the case is here on the defendant’s exception to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict. We assume that the plaintiff was a business invitee and that the defendant, owed him a duty to exercise reasonable care to provide him with safe appliances. Gauld v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. 329 Mass. 724, 726-727. The ladder was used to ascend to the upper level of the barn, and was placed on an inclined base. The plaintiff and his son went, safely up the ladder, and the son climbed safely down. Before descending, the plaintiff moved the ladder over about four inches to straighten it out, and as he put his weight on it the ladder twisted and he fell. There was no evidence that there was any danger before the plaintiff moved the ladder, or that any negligence before he moved it, contributed to the accident. In the absence of evidence of negligence, a verdict, should have been directed for the defendant. See McDonnell v. New York, N. H. & H. R.R. 192 Mass. 538, 542; Sjostedt v. Webster, 306 Mass. 344, 345; Bloom v. Warshaw, 332 Mass. 14, 17; Cohen v. Suburban Sidney-Hill, Inc. 343 Mass. 217, 219.

Exceptions sustained.

Judgment for the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 N.E.2d 329, 359 Mass. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stellato-v-owens-illinois-glass-co-mass-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack