From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk
Mar 3, 1911
94 N.E. 386 (Mass. 1911)

Summary

upholding plaintiff's verdict when evidence suggested that banana peel was dirty, gritty, trampled, and black, and that employees' duties included observing and removing unsafe objects on platform

Summary of this case from Hennessey v. the Stop Shop Supermarket Co.

Opinion

January 11, 1911.

March 3, 1911.

Present: KNOWLTON, C.J., LORING, BRALEY, SHELDON, RUGG, JJ.

Negligence, Elevated railway: care of station.

At the trial of an action against an elevated railway company to recover for personal injuries received by the plaintiff and due to his slipping upon a banana peel on the upper platform of a station of the defendant as he was following an employee of the defendant who was directing him to another car, there was evidence tending to show that it was the duty of certain employees of the defendant, one of whom was at the station all the time, to observe and to remove whatever was upon the platform to interfere with the safety of travellers. The description of the banana peel by different witnesses was that it "felt dry and gritty as if there were dirt upon it," as if "tramped over a good deal," as "flattened down, and black in color," "every bit of it was black, there wasn't a particle of yellow," that it was "black, flattened out and gritty." Held, that the question of the defendant's liability was for the jury, who might have found that the banana peel had been upon the platform for a considerable period of time and had been left there negligently by employees of the defendant in violation of the defendant's duty to keep its station reasonably safe for its passengers.

J.J. Cummings, (H.J. Dixon with him,) for the plaintiff.

J.E. Hannigan, for the defendant, submitted a brief.


The plaintiff arrived on one of defendant's cars on the upper level of the Dudley Street terminal; other passengers arrived on same car, but it does not appear how many. She waited until the crowd had left the platform, when she inquired of one of defendant's uniformed employees the direction to another car. He walked along a narrow platform, and she, following a few feet behind him toward the stairway he had indicated, was injured by slipping upon a banana peel. It was described by several who examined it in these terms: it "felt dry and gritty as if there were dirt upon it," as if "trampled over a good deal," as "flattened down, and black in color," "every bit of it was black, there wasn't a particle of yellow" and as "black, flattened out and gritty." It was one of the duties of employees of the defendant, of whom there was one at this station all the time, to observe and remove whatever was upon the platform to interfere with the safety of travellers. These might have been found to be the facts.

The inference might have been drawn from the appearance and condition of the banana peel that it had been upon the platform a considerable period of time, in such position that it would have been seen and removed by the employees of the defendant if they had performed their duty. Therefore, there is something on which to base a conclusion that it was not dropped a moment before by a passenger, and Goddard v. Boston Maine Railroad, 179 Mass. 52, and Lyons v. Boston Elevated Railway, 204 Mass. 227, are plainly distinguishable. The obligation rested upon the defendant to keep its station reasonably safe for its passengers. It might have been found that the platform was suffered to remain in such condition as to be a menace to those rightfully walking upon it. Hence there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, which should have been submitted to the jury. MacLaren v. Boston Elevated Railway, 197 Mass. 490. Foster v. Old Colony Street Railway, 182 Mass. 378. Rosen v. Boston, 187 Mass. 245. Kingston v. Boston Elevated Railway, 207 Mass. 457.

In accordance with the terms of the report, let the entry be

The case was tried before Brown, J., who, at the close of the evidence, by agreement of the parties ordered a verdict for the defendant and reported the case to this court for determination, the agreement stating: "If there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant which should have been submitted to the jury, then judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff for $1,250 with costs of suit. Otherwise, the verdict to stand."

Judgment for the plaintiff for $1,250 with costs.


Summaries of

Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk
Mar 3, 1911
94 N.E. 386 (Mass. 1911)

upholding plaintiff's verdict when evidence suggested that banana peel was dirty, gritty, trampled, and black, and that employees' duties included observing and removing unsafe objects on platform

Summary of this case from Hennessey v. the Stop Shop Supermarket Co.

In Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386, the plaintiff was injured by slipping on `a banana peel which was described by witnesses in these terms: It "felt dry and gritty, as if there were dire upon it," as if "trampled over a good deal," as "flattened down, and black in color."

Summary of this case from Morris v. King Cole Stores, Inc.

In Anjou v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386, 21 Ann. Cas. 1143, the court differentiates the Goddard Case, supra, in that it appeared the banana peel was old and gritty, showing signs of having been trampled over, etc. This latter case is the more analogous to the one at bar, if plaintiff's version be true.

Summary of this case from Ensley Holding Co. v. Kelley

In Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 273, relied on by the plaintiff, there was more than color to warrant finding that the banana skin, there in question, had lain on the platform so long that it should have been found and carried away. Regan v. Boston Maine Railroad, 224 Mass. 418, and Wheeler v. Sawyer, 219 Mass. 103, also relied on by the plaintiff, are clearly distinguishable.

Summary of this case from Cartoof v. F.W. Woolworth Co.

In Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway, 208 Mass. 273 (1911), it was held that a fall on a banana peel which was entirely black which felt dry and gritty, flattened out and giving the appearance of being trampled upon a great deal permitted inference of negligence.

Summary of this case from Webber v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc.

In Anjou v. Boston ElevatedRailway Co., 208 Mass. 273, 274 (1911), a banana peel which "felt dry and gritty as if there were some dirt on it" and "which was flattened down, and black in color" permitted the finder of fact to find that it had been left on the platform of the defendant for a considerable period of time and to conclude "that it should have been removed by the employees of the defendant if they had performed their duty."

Summary of this case from Vaughters v. Shaw's Supermarket, Inc.
Case details for

Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway

Case Details

Full title:HELEN G. ANJOU vs. BOSTON ELEVATED RAILWAY COMPANY

Court:Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Suffolk

Date published: Mar 3, 1911

Citations

94 N.E. 386 (Mass. 1911)
94 N.E. 386

Citing Cases

Williamson v. F.W. Woolworth

I. The Court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of the appellee at the close of appellant's…

Renzi v. Boston Elevated Railway

Compare O'Neill v. Boston Elevated Railway, 248 Mass. 362, 363. Nor does it appear in the case at bar that…