Zieff v. Cutter Fire Brick Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Zieff v. Cutter Fire Brick Co.

212 N.E.2d 856, 350 Mass. 761

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 212 N.E.2d 856 (Zieff v. Cutter Fire Brick 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

Zieff v. Cutter Fire Brick Co., 212 N.E.2d 856, 350 Mass. 761 (Mass. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action of tort to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when “her foot hit the fringe of . . . [a] rubbish pile” and a piece of “glass shot down and hit her in the right foot.” The rubbish was deposited some three or four yards from the rear entrance to the plaintiff’s place of work. The plaintiff knew that workmen of the defendant Cutter Eire Brick Company, Inc. were repairing the premises for the other defendants, the trustees of the Lynn Realty Trust. She saw the pile of debris “when she went to work” and as she left the building to go home. The accident occurred on her way home when she attempted to “squeeze” between the rubbish pile and a truck which had been left for the night. The other employees used the front door and “she was the only one who went out the back door that day.” The presence of material as an incident to construction or repair in an obvious place which may be avoided by the plaintiff does not violate any duty owed her by the defendants. Forgione v. Frankini Constr. Co. 308 Mass. 29, 31-32. Zega v. Kingston, 346 Mass. 773. There was no error in directing verdicts for the defendants.

Exceptions overruled.

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

This is an action of tort to recover for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when “her foot hit the fringe of . . . [a] rubbish pile” and a piece of “glass shot down and hit her in the right foot.” The rubbish was deposited some three or four yards from the rear entrance to the plaintiff’s place of work. The plaintiff knew that workmen of the defendant Cutter Eire Brick Company, Inc. were repairing the premises for the other defendants, the trustees of the Lynn Realty Trust. She saw the pile of debris “when she went to work” and as she left the building to go home. The accident occurred on her way home when she attempted to “squeeze” between the rubbish pile and a truck which had been left for the night. The other employees used the front door and “she was the only one who went out the back door that day.” The presence of material as an incident to construction or repair in an obvious place which may be avoided by the plaintiff does not violate any duty owed her by the defendants. Forgione v. Frankini Constr. Co. 308 Mass. 29, 31-32. Zega v. Kingston, 346 Mass. 773. There was no error in directing verdicts for the defendants.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 N.E.2d 856, 350 Mass. 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zieff-v-cutter-fire-brick-co-mass-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack