Swart v. City of Boston

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Swart v. City of Boston

193 N.E. 360, 288 Mass. 542, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1320

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 10, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 193 N.E. 360 (Swart v. City of Boston) 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

Swart v. City of Boston, 193 N.E. 360, 288 Mass. 542, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1320 (Mass. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Rugg, C.J.

This is an action of tort wherein the plaintiff alleges that she, while a traveller, suffered injuries by reason of a defect in a sidewalk. The evidence was somewhat conflicting as to the place and cause of her fall. The case was submitted to the jury and a verdict returned for the defendant. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff slipped on the sidewalk at a place where it was in good condition. An eyewitness of the accident testified that he saw the plaintiff slip and that her shoe left a skid mark on the sidewalk. Later, when a photographer was about to take a picture of the locus, this witness put over the place [543]*543where he had seen the skid mark a piece of white paper which showed in the photograph. The photograph was rightly admitted in evidence. Whether it was taken under conditions sufficiently similar to make it of value in aiding the jury to pass upon the issue was primarily for the trial judge to determine as matter of discretion. It cannot be said that his discretion was wrongly exercised in the case at bar. McKarren v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 194 Mass. 179. Field v. Gowdy, 199 Mass. 568, 574. Eldredge v. Mitchell, 214 Mass. 480.

The judge instructed the jury that they must "be reasonably certain upon the state of the evidence” that the plaintiff sustained her injuries by reason of the defect and that the city was negligent in not remedying the defect. At the close of the charge the plaintiff drew the attention of the trial judge to this statement suggesting that it was "a charge for a criminal case.” The judge declined to change it and the plaintiff objected. No exception was saved. Therefore no question is open to the plaintiff. Ogden v. Aspinwall, 220 Mass. 100, 103. Commonwealth v. Teregno, 234 Mass. 56, 59.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Rugg, C.J.

This is an action of tort wherein the plaintiff alleges that she, while a traveller, suffered injuries by reason of a defect in a sidewalk. The evidence was somewhat conflicting as to the place and cause of her fall. The case was submitted to the jury and a verdict returned for the defendant. There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff slipped on the sidewalk at a place where it was in good condition. An eyewitness of the accident testified that he saw the plaintiff slip and that her shoe left a skid mark on the sidewalk. Later, when a photographer was about to take a picture of the locus, this witness put over the place [543]*543where he had seen the skid mark a piece of white paper which showed in the photograph. The photograph was rightly admitted in evidence. Whether it was taken under conditions sufficiently similar to make it of value in aiding the jury to pass upon the issue was primarily for the trial judge to determine as matter of discretion. It cannot be said that his discretion was wrongly exercised in the case at bar. McKarren v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 194 Mass. 179. Field v. Gowdy, 199 Mass. 568, 574. Eldredge v. Mitchell, 214 Mass. 480.

The judge instructed the jury that they must "be reasonably certain upon the state of the evidence” that the plaintiff sustained her injuries by reason of the defect and that the city was negligent in not remedying the defect. At the close of the charge the plaintiff drew the attention of the trial judge to this statement suggesting that it was "a charge for a criminal case.” The judge declined to change it and the plaintiff objected. No exception was saved. Therefore no question is open to the plaintiff. Ogden v. Aspinwall, 220 Mass. 100, 103. Commonwealth v. Teregno, 234 Mass. 56, 59.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 N.E. 360, 288 Mass. 542, 1934 Mass. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swart-v-city-of-boston-mass-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack