Rowett v. City of North Adams
Cecelia Rowett v. City of North Adams
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 to recover compensation for injuries sustained by a pedestrian who fell in crossing a brick paved street through an alleged defect distant a foot or two from the curbing of the sidewalk. Testimony from the plaintiff was that the alleged defect was “a hole. . . . It was sunk down. A hole that my foot, my heel caught in”; and from other witnesses was that it was a “sunken brick,” “two small bricks . . . sunken in a little,” “the brick kind of broken up a little bit, kind of sunken in.” There was no testimony as to the area, depth, *51 or other features of the so called "hole.” On photographs and plan it seems insignificant.
As matter of law there was no evidence of a defect in the roadway of a nature to render the defendant liable. Raymond v. Lowell, 6 Cush. 524 , 533-534. Newton v. Worcester, 174 Mass. 181 . Isaacson v. Boston, 195 Mass. 114 . Cannon v. Brookline, 256 Mass. 468 . Boudreau v. Springfield, 257 Mass. 105 . Cataldo v. Boston, 263 Mass. 330 .
Exceptions overruled.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(city not liable for injury to pedestrian who stepped in hole while crossing paved street where testimony did not describe the "area, depth, or other features of the so-called 'hole'")
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.