TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hunnewell v. Haskell

Louisa S. Hunnewell v. Louisa B. Haskell

Hunnewell v. Haskell, 55 N.E. 320 (Mass. 1899)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 29, 1899
Judges
Holmes
Citations
55 N.E. 320174 Mass. 5571899 Mass. LEXIS 977
Headnotes
Personal Injuries — Negligence — Duty of Shopkeeper to give Warning of ' Flight of Stairs. There is no duty on the part of a shopkeeper to give warning of the- presence of an . ordinary flight of stairs in broad daylight, or to guard the necessary access to it, even if there is a crowd in his shop.
Summary
Tort, for personal injuries. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., the plaintiff testified that she entered the defendant’s store in New Bedford at the entrance on Purchase Street about nine o’clock in the morning; that there was a great crowd in the passageway; that she turned to the right to get round to the silk counter, which was on the south side of the store; that there were so many people there she had to edge her way along; that “ right there was an open stairway, and I suppose I went too near to get round as I could not see anything, and I did not see any open stairway or rail ” ; that it was her purpose to purchase something; that her foot went off and she went head foremost down the stairs; and that she had been in the store before. On cross-examination she testified that she knew it was a store where goods were kept for sale, with counters and clerks below as well as above, but that she did not' know about the stairway where she fell down, and that her sight was very good, except that she was a little near sighted. The following was agreed upon as a description, in connection with certain photographs, of the place of the accident, “ the opening at the head of the stairway is three feet six inches wide. At either side newel posts which are stationed at the end of railings shut off the stairway at all places except at the opening provided for the public to pass up and down. The height of the railings connected with the newel posts is four feet. The first step, as it appears in the photographs, has an eight-inch drop to a platform stair about four feet square. There are several passageways of the usual character all through the store on the ground floor and on the basement floor. The distance from the south rail of the stairway to the south end of the silk counter is three feet. The doorway at which the public enter is about twenty feet from the stairway. The passageway toward the silk counter from that door leads by the head of the stairway.” At the conclusion of the testimony, the judge, at the request of the defendant, directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Holmes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Holmes, C. J.

If the court can see that there has been no breach of duty on the part of the defendant, an allegation of negligence will not entitle the plaintiff to go to the jury. There is no duty on the part of a shopkeeper to give warning of the presence of an ordinary flight of stairs in broad daylight, or to guard the necessary access to it even if there is a crowd in his shop. The sides of the opening were guarded. Every one who *559 is on an upper story knows that there probably are stairs from it somewhere, and must look out for them. See Richardson v. Boston, 156 Mass. 145 ; Pinney v. Hall, 156 Mass. 225 . The case is different from that of a hole in the floor which commonly is covered and which is of a kind not to be expected; therefore Hendricken v. Meadows, 154 Mass. 599 , and Drennan v. Grady, 167 Mass. 415 , cited by the plaintiff, do not apply. Neither does Currier v. Boston Music Hall Association, 135 Mass. 414 , where, according to the evidence, the darkness made the depression invisible. Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 28 cases

View all citing references →
1900: 11901: 11909: 11914: 11915: 11916: 11917: 11920: 11923: 11933: 11935: 21937: 11938: 11940: 21944: 11949: 11952: 11955: 11956: 11959: 21960: 11961: 11964: 11965: 11977: 119002026peak 1935 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Burkert v. Smith94 A.2d 460 (Md. 1977)
  2. Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp.138 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)
  3. Blodgett v. B. H. Dyas Co.50 P.2d 801 (Cal. 1935)
  4. Albachten v. Golden Rule160 N.W. 1012 (Minn. 1917)
  5. Long v. Joestlein66 A.2d 407 (Md. 1949)
  6. Warner v. Hansen102 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 1960)

Most recent

  1. Burkert v. Smith94 A.2d 460 (Md. 1977)
  2. Marmen v. Peoples Supermarket of New Bedford, Inc.31 Mass. App. Dec. 48 (1965)
  3. Gibson v. Consolidated Credit Corp.138 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)
  4. Corrigan v. Younker Brothers, Inc.110 N.W.2d 246 (Iowa 1961)
  5. Warner v. Hansen102 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 1960)
  6. LUDLOFF TRADING AS IRVIN LUDLOFF & COMPANY v. Hanson151 A.2d 753 (Md. 1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Currier v. Boston Music Hall Ass'n, 135 Mass. 414 (1883) 28
Hendricken v. Meadows, 28 N.E. 1054 (Mass. 1891) 28
Pinney v. Hall, 30 N.E. 1016 (Mass. 1892) 20
Drennan v. Grady, 45 N.E. 741 (Mass. 1897) 15
Richardson v. City of Boston, 30 N.E. 478 (Mass. 1892) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list