TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Andrew Dutton Co. v. City of Boston

Andrew Dutton Company v. City of Boston

Andrew Dutton Co. v. City of Boston, 234 Mass. 54 (1919)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 12, 1919
Citations
234 Mass. 54
Headnotes
Way, Defect. Bridge. Evidence, Matter of conjecture. At the trial of an action under R. L. c. 51, § 18, against a city for damages to a horse of the plaintiff alleged to have been caused by a defect in a bridge, the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff tended to show that the horse, after having taken one step over a plank newly laid in the floor of the bridge, was found to have a spike in his hoof, that the horse did not put his foot down again until the spike was removed, that the spike was similar to spikes used in securing planks to bridge surfaces, and that it bore no hammer or sledge marks. A verdict was ordered for the defendant. Held, that it was a matter of conjecture how or by whose act the spike came upon the bridge surface, and that the verdict properly was ordered.
Summary
Tort for damages to a horse of the plaintiff caused by his stepping upon a spike on the Congress Street bridge in Boston. Writ dated July 19, 1917. The declaration was in two counts, the first count being under R. L. c. 51, § 18, and the second count alleging that the damage was caused by negligence of the defendant. The action was tried before White, J., who at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence ordered a verdict for the defendant and reported the case to this court for determination, it being agreed by the parties that, if his ruling was right, judgment should be entered for the defendant on the verdict, and that, if the case should have been submittéd to the jury, judgment should be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $500.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

By the Court.

The plaintiff at the argument in this court rightly having waived its second count, the action is to recover damages alleged to have resulted from a defective condition of a highway in the defendant city.

The facts in their aspect most favorable to the plaintiff are: One of a pair of horses belonging to it driven on to the Congress Street bridge, after going one step over a plank newly laid in the floor of the bridge, was found to have a spike in its hoof. The horse did not put its foot on the roadway after “picking up” the spike until it was removed'. The spike apparently had not been driven into the plank because it bore no hammer or sledge marks. It was similar to spikes used in securing planks to the bridge surface.

There' is nothing in these circumstances to warrant a finding that the defendant was negligent or was responsible for a defective highway. How or by whom the spike came upon the highway or how-long it had been there are matters left wholly to conjecture. Craig v. Leominster, 200 Mass. 101 . Bigwood v. Boston & Northern Street Railway, 209 Mass. 345 . Smith v. Hyde Park, 219 Mass. 168 . Hamilton v. Cambridge, 219 Mass. 418 .

Judgment for the defendant on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 11950: 11953: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Felch v. D'AMICO93 N.E.2d 406 (Mass. 1950)
  2. Lione v. Hudson Chester Granite Co.149 N.E. 147 (Mass. 1925)
  3. Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.6 Mass. App. Dec. 61 (1953)

Most recent

  1. Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.6 Mass. App. Dec. 61 (1953)
  2. Felch v. D'AMICO93 N.E.2d 406 (Mass. 1950)
  3. Lione v. Hudson Chester Granite Co.149 N.E. 147 (Mass. 1925)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Bigwood v. Boston & Northern St. Ry. Co., 95 N.E. 751 (Mass. 1911) 78
Hamilton v. City of Cambridge, 106 N.E. 1018 (Mass. 1914) 5
Craig v. Inhabitants of Leominster, 85 N.E. 855 (Mass. 1908) 4
Smith v. Inhabitants of Hyde Park, 106 N.E. 564 (Mass. 1914) 4

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