Walton v. Hoffman

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Walton v. Hoffman

248 N.E.2d 647, 356 Mass. 716

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 29, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 N.E.2d 647 (Walton v. Hoffman) 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

Walton v. Hoffman, 248 N.E.2d 647, 356 Mass. 716 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

About 5:30 p.m. on January 27, 1960, the plaintiffs, both municipal firefighters, drove to Boston and went to a barroom on Kingston Street where they remained for approximately a half hour having a few drinks. When they emerged the street lights were on. On a building nearby there was a sign “For Rent,” or “Entire 4th & 5th floors for rent. Call RI 2-4142.” No call was ever made. They had never been in the building before and knew no one there. Nobody ever invited them into the premises. They entered the doorway. It was dim and dark. They could not see. They took a few steps and fell into an elevator pit and were injured. Shortly after midnight they went home. At the close of the evidence, which included such matters as the operating condition of the elevator and the gate, the judge, subject to exception, directed verdicts for the defendants. There was no error. We pass without comment the plaintiffs’ contention that their purpose in entering the building at the time of day and year “was to see the area that was for rent” and that therefore they were business invitees to whom the duty of reasonable care was owed. We rule that the evidence required a finding that the plaintiffs were contribu-torily negligent. Herman v. Golden, 298 Mass. 9, 12. Gidge v. Security Realty Co. 347 Mass. 779. There was no reversible error in the rulings on evidence.

Exceptions overruled.

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

About 5:30 p.m. on January 27, 1960, the plaintiffs, both municipal firefighters, drove to Boston and went to a barroom on Kingston Street where they remained for approximately a half hour having a few drinks. When they emerged the street lights were on. On a building nearby there was a sign “For Rent,” or “Entire 4th & 5th floors for rent. Call RI 2-4142.” No call was ever made. They had never been in the building before and knew no one there. Nobody ever invited them into the premises. They entered the doorway. It was dim and dark. They could not see. They took a few steps and fell into an elevator pit and were injured. Shortly after midnight they went home. At the close of the evidence, which included such matters as the operating condition of the elevator and the gate, the judge, subject to exception, directed verdicts for the defendants. There was no error. We pass without comment the plaintiffs’ contention that their purpose in entering the building at the time of day and year “was to see the area that was for rent” and that therefore they were business invitees to whom the duty of reasonable care was owed. We rule that the evidence required a finding that the plaintiffs were contribu-torily negligent. Herman v. Golden, 298 Mass. 9, 12. Gidge v. Security Realty Co. 347 Mass. 779. There was no reversible error in the rulings on evidence.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.E.2d 647, 356 Mass. 716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-hoffman-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack