TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boisse v. Goldberg

Anna Boisse v. Rose Goldberg & others, trustees

Boisse v. Goldberg, 28 N.E.2d 217 (Mass. 1940)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 25, 1940
Judges
Cox
Citations
28 N.E.2d 217306 Mass. 3361940 Mass. LEXIS 904

Opinion of the Court — Cox

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

Cox, J.

The jury could have found that the plaintiff was injured on February 15, 1938, as she was descending what appears to be a common stairway in a building admittedly owned by the defendants, as trustees, after a business visit to a tenant, and that her injuries resulted from her foot being caught on a nail that protruded from one of the stair treads. Beyond the facts that the tenant was an occupant of a portion of the building on the day of the injury, and that the plaintiff had been to its shop twice before, the record is bare of any evidence as to when the tenancy began. The plaintiff testified that the nail protruded about half an inch, that it was rusty and a little shiny, and that the head part was shiny, but there was nothing to show how long this condition had existed. Blake v. John F. Johnston Co. 213 Mass. 143 . Leslie v. Glazer, 273 Mass. 221, 223, 224 . Compare Solomon v. Boston Elevated Railway, 276 Mass. 139, 141 , and cases cited; Pauley v. Brockton Savings. Bank, 305 Mass. 517, *337 519-520 . Apart from this and testimony of the plaintiff, that when she had visited the shop on different occasions she had not noticed anything wrong with the stairway, there is nothing to show its condition at any other time. The trial judge allowed the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict subject to the plaintiff’s exception, which presents the only question in the case.

There is nothing to show the condition of the stairway at the time the tenancy in question began, whenever that may have been, or that its condition upon that unknown date was any different from that when the plaintiff was injured. Chambers v. Durling, ante, 327. Shwartz v. Feinberg, ante, 331. Even if it be assumed that the stairway was defective when the plaintiff was injured, she cannot recover in the absence of evidence as to these matters. Murray v. Lincoln, 277 Mass. 557, 559 . Sullivan v. F. W. Woolworth Co. 305 Mass. 378 .

Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1943: 21947: 11956: 119432026peak 1943 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sneckner v. Feingold51 N.E.2d 118 (Mass. 1943)
  2. McCarthy v. Isenberg Bros.72 N.E.2d 422 (Mass. 1947)
  3. McNeill v. Home Savings Bank48 N.E.2d 695 (Mass. 1943)
  4. Pansky v. Abrams131 N.E.2d 183 (Mass. 1956)

Most recent

  1. Pansky v. Abrams131 N.E.2d 183 (Mass. 1956)
  2. McCarthy v. Isenberg Bros.72 N.E.2d 422 (Mass. 1947)
  3. Sneckner v. Feingold51 N.E.2d 118 (Mass. 1943)
  4. McNeill v. Home Savings Bank48 N.E.2d 695 (Mass. 1943)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Leslie v. Glazer, 173 N.E. 413 (Mass. 1930) 16
Solomon v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 176 N.E. 810 (Mass. 1931) 15
Murray v. Lincoln, 179 N.E. 171 (Mass. 1931) 14
Sullivan v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 25 N.E.2d 724 (Mass. 1940) 10
Blake v. John F. Johnston Co., 99 N.E. 950 (Mass. 1912) 5
Pauley v. Brockton Sav. Bank, 26 N.E.2d 345 (Mass. 1940) 5

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