TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cox v. City of Boston

William A. Cox v. City of Boston

Cox v. City of Boston, 254 Mass. 498 (1926)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 28, 1926
Citations
254 Mass. 498

Opinion of the Court

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

By the Court.

This is an action of tort to recover compensation for injuries alleged to have been received by a traveller from a defect in a highway. The question to be decided is whether the trial court rightly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff could not be *499 found to have been in the exercise of due care. The plaintiff testified that at about half past eleven o’clock in the forenoon of a November day, while walking on a sidewalk five or six feet wide, perfectly familiar to him, where he knew from previous observation that there was a hole six or seven inches wide and seven inches or a little more long and about six inches deep, he stopped ten or twelve feet before reaching the hole to light a cigarette and then went forward with his eyes on the ground; that he knew the hole was there and saw it and stepped around it with his right foot so as to avoid the hole and as he did so his left foot went into the hole; that at the time the only person in the vicinity was his companion who was several feet ahead; and that he did not know how his left foot went into the hole.

Mere knowledge of a defective condition of a highway does not bar recovery by a traveller injured thereby in the daytime. Thompson v. Bolton, 197 Mass. 311 . But the case at bar shows plainly that the plaintiff with ample space, and full knowledge, daylight and alert attention got into a small hole in a large sidewalk free from other travel or diverting circumstances of any kind. The requirement of due care would cease to have significance in this branch of the law if a plaintiff could be permitted to recover in these conditions. His own testimony conclusively shows want of ordinary caution. See Chapman v. Boston, 252 Mass. 404 .

The disposition of the motion for a new trial rested in the sound discretion of the judge, which does not appear to have been abused. The questions of law attempted to be raised on that motion might all have been raised at the trial. No error is shown in the denial of requests for rulings.

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1937: 11938: 11940: 21949: 11994: 119372026peak 1940 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Constance Chester v. City of Medford1994 Mass. App. Div. 69 (1994)
  2. Mello v. City of Peabody25 N.E.2d 751 (Mass. 1940)
  3. Barton v. City of Boston17 N.E.2d 696 (Mass. 1938)
  4. Callagy v. City of Boston7 N.E.2d 423 (Mass. 1937)
  5. Elwell v. Town of Athol88 N.E.2d 635 (Mass. 1949)
  6. Sonia v. Town of Billerica30 N.E.2d 901 (Mass. 1940)

Most recent

  1. Constance Chester v. City of Medford1994 Mass. App. Div. 69 (1994)
  2. Elwell v. Town of Athol88 N.E.2d 635 (Mass. 1949)
  3. Sonia v. Town of Billerica30 N.E.2d 901 (Mass. 1940)
  4. Mello v. City of Peabody25 N.E.2d 751 (Mass. 1940)
  5. Barton v. City of Boston17 N.E.2d 696 (Mass. 1938)
  6. Callagy v. City of Boston7 N.E.2d 423 (Mass. 1937)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Thompson v. Inhabitants of Bolton, 83 N.E. 1089 (Mass. 1908) 13
Chapman v. City of Boston, 147 N.E. 840 (Mass. 1925) 11

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