Upham v. City of Boston

72 N.E. 946, 187 Mass. 220, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 969
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 5, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 72 N.E. 946 (Upham 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
Upham v. City of Boston, 72 N.E. 946, 187 Mass. 220, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 969 (Mass. 1905).

Opinion

Barker, J.

The plaintiff while walking with crutches on the sidewalk of Union Park Street in Boston was thrown down and hurt because the end of one of her crutches went down into a circular opening in the surface of the sidewalk caused by the absence of a glass disk in a Hyatt light. The hole was from two to two and five eighths inches in’ diameter. The crutch went down into the hole about two feet. Several of these glass disks were out at the time of the accident. The judge left to the jury the question whether the hole was a defect. The defendant excepted to a refusal to rule that the evidence did not disclose any defect. The only question raised by the defendant in this court is whether we shall decide as matter of law that such a circular opening in the surface of a sidewalk is not a defect.

We have no doubt of our power to hold that a certain condition of things in a way is not as matter of law a defect. See Burke v. Haverhill, ante, 65. Nor do we express any opinion upon the question whether a hole so small that it could endanger no travellers except those using crutches might be a defect. [221]*221We think it plain that the toe or the heel of many travellers without crutches might be caught in a circular opening two and five eighths inches in diameter, and cause injury.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Rintone v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
329 N.E.2d 139 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1975)
Mahoney v. City of Quincy
28 Mass. App. Dec. 146 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1964)
Marulli v. Town of Lexington
4 Mass. App. Div. 53 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1939)
Corthell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
291 Mass. 242 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Bianchetti v. Luce
2 S.W.2d 129 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1927)
Cornell v. City of Ypsilanti
180 N.W. 405 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1920)
Delamaine v. Inhabitants of Revere
118 N.E. 660 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Campbell v. City of Boston
75 N.E. 96 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 N.E. 946, 187 Mass. 220, 1905 Mass. LEXIS 969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/upham-v-city-of-boston-mass-1905.