RICHARDSON v. WHITTIER, Mass., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

J.J. Donahue, for the plaintiff. W.B. Downey, for the defendant Whittier, trustee. P.F. Drew, ( J.N. Worcester with him,) for the defendant Samuels Supply Co.

Judges

CARROLL, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff was placing a refrigerator on a truck backed to the curbing in front of No. 54 Friend Street, Boston. The refrigerator had been taken from No. 50 Friend Street and moved along the sidewalk to the truck. The entrance known as No. 54 Friend Street had a granite threshold about twenty-six inches wide; the superintendent testified the threshold was about one and one quarter to one and one half inches above the sidewalk whereas the plaintiff testified he did not recall a difference in level. Inside this doorway was an elevator; the elevator well depth was variously estimated between nine feet ten inches and eighteen feet, and the well was set back from the public sidewalk line about twenty-six inches.

The street-floor opening to the elevator well was equipped with a gate which the plaintiff claimed was defective and failed to drop or close when the elevator left the street level. At the time of the incident the elevator was at the top floor (occupied by the defendant Samuels Supply Company) and the gate at the street floor was open; the plaintiff said he did not know the gate was open. While bracing himself to push the refrigerator he had been handling at the curb, the plaintiff stepped backward, his foot went into the elevator opening, and he fell to the bottom of the well, suffering personal injuries.

The defendants were Charles W. Whittier, trustee (owner of the building), and Samuels Supply Company (tenant occupying an upper floor and using the elevator). Writs were dated June 23, 1926. The two tort actions were tried together in the Superior Court before Whiting, J. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, both defendants moved for directed verdicts; those motions were allowed and the plaintiff excepted. The opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court resolves the plaintiff's exceptions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the owner of the building or the tenant using the elevator owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under these facts, or whether the plaintiff was a trespasser to whom no duty (beyond refraining from wanton or wilful misconduct) was owed.
Whether a failure to have a gate on the elevator landing properly secured or maintained (including alleged noncompliance with a departmental elevator regulation) created liability to the plaintiff under the circumstances.
Whether an excavation or opening set back from the public sidewalk line constitutes a nuisance or creates liability to a person on the sidewalk who falls into it.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Howland v. Vincent, 10 Met. 371	That an excavation outside the limits of the highway does not constitute a nuisance for which the landowner is responsible.	Used to support the proposition that the elevator well set back from the street did not render the owner liable to the plaintiff who was not an invitee.
McIntire v. Roberts, 149 Mass. 450	Same principle concerning excavations outside highway limits and nonliability.	Referenced alongside Howland to reinforce that the owner's exposure to liability for such an opening is limited where the injured person is not an invitee.
McManus v. Thing, 194 Mass. 362	Referenced in connection with prior holdings on related premises-liability principles.	Cited as related authority in the court's discussion of landowner liability for hazards adjacent to the highway.
Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578	Holds that where an owner prepares and permits land to be used as a sidewalk, that conduct may amount to an invitation to the public and create liability.	The court distinguished Holmes on the facts: there the owner had paved and permitted use as part of the sidewalk, whereas here no similar invitation or appropriation of land for public sidewalk use was shown.
Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489	General authority on property/use; cited relative to other authorities.	The court noted Oliver is not in conflict with the conclusions reached in this case.
Pizzano v. Shuman, 229 Mass. 240	Interprets scope of elevator regulations and their protection (focusing on persons rightfully on the premises).	Used to support the court's statement that a departmental regulation requiring gates is intended to protect persons lawfully on the premises, not trespassers.
Brennan v. Keene, 237 Mass. 556, 562	Also addresses the limited protective scope of safety regulations with respect to trespassers or mere licensees.	Cited along with Pizzano to show regulation 15 did not create a basis for recovery by this plaintiff, who was not lawfully upon the premises.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first determined the plaintiff's status relative to the premises. Because the plaintiff was placing the refrigerator at the curb outside the premises and had not been shown to be an invitee of the defendants, he was treated as a trespasser on the building entrance and elevator landing area. The elevator well was set back about twenty-six inches from the sidewalk line; the court relied on precedents holding that an excavation outside the highway limits does not necessarily make the landowner responsible to those not lawfully upon the land (citing Howland v. Vincent and McIntire v. Roberts, and referring to McManus v. Thing).

The court considered the plaintiff's reliance on Holmes v. Drew (where an owner paved her land and permitted it to be used as a sidewalk, creating an invitation) but found that Holmes was distinguishable because the facts here did not show that the owner had appropriated or invited public use of the land in front of the building.

The plaintiff also introduced regulation 15 of the Commonwealth's department of public safety elevator regulations, which requires gates on doors for landings or openings in outside walls and locking devices. The court interpreted those regulations (with support from Pizzano v. Shuman and Brennan v. Keene) as intended to protect persons who were rightfully upon the premises, not mere licensees or trespassers. Because the plaintiff was not lawfully on the premises and there was no evidence of wanton or wilful misconduct by either defendant, the existence of the regulation did not establish liability in these circumstances.

On this basis, the trial judge's allowance of the defendants' motions for directed verdicts at the close of the plaintiff's evidence was proper.

Holding and Implications

The directed verdicts for the defendants were properly allowed and the plaintiff's exceptions are overruled.

Consequences: The immediate effect is that the plaintiff's actions are not supported by the evidence as a matter of law and the verdicts for the defendants stand (the exceptions were overruled). The court's decision rests on the plaintiff's status as a trespasser and the absence of wanton or wilful misconduct; the court did not endorse a broader rule expanding liability to landowners or tenants under these facts. No broader legal innovation or new precedent was announced beyond application of existing principles distinguishing invitees from trespassers and the limited protective scope of the cited safety regulation.

Show full summary ...

RANDOLPH RICHARDSON vs. CHARLES W. WHITTIER, trustee. SAME vs. SAMUELS SUPPLY CO.

Negligence, Elevator, Of person owning or controlling real estate, Trespasser.

An action of tort for personal injuries cannot be maintained either against the owner of a building, or against a tenant using an elevator therein, by one who, while engaged in loading, to a truck at the curbing in front of the building, freight carried to the front of the building from another building not shown to be owned or controlled by either defendant, stepped backward and fell into the elevator well, whose guarding gate had been left open by the tenant who was using the elevator on another floor, where it appeared that the elevator well was set back from the public sidewalk line about twenty-six inches: the plaintiff was a trespasser on the premises and there was no evidence of wanton or reckless misconduct of either defendant. A regulation of the department of public safety of the Commonwealth, which provides for the maintenance of gates on doors for elevator landings or openings in outside walls and their equipment with locking devices, was intended for the safety of persons who were rightly upon the premises, and not for the protection or safety of mere licensees or trespassers; and it gave the plaintiff in the action above described no ground of action in the circumstances.

CARROLL, J.

The plaintiff was engaged in placing a refrigerator on a truck which was backed up to the curbing in front of No. 54 Friend Street, in Boston. The refrigerator had been taken from No. 50 Friend Street and moved along the sidewalk to the truck. The entrance known as No. 54 Friend Street was a doorway with a granite threshold twenty-six inches wide. The plaintiff testified that he had no recollection that there was any difference between the level of the threshold and the level of the sidewalk. The superintendent of the building testified that the threshold was from one and one fourth to one and one half inches above the sidewalk. On the inside of the doorway there was an elevator, the well of which was variously estimated as from nine feet ten inches to eighteen feet in depth. The well was set back from the sidewalk line about twenty-six inches. The defendant Whittier was the owner of the building No. 54 Friend Street, and the defendant Samuels Supply Company was a tenant in this building. The elevator well at the street floor was equipped with a gate which the plaintiff asserts was defective and failed to drop or close when the elevator left the street level. As the plaintiff was lifting the refrigerator, he was about to push it and put "his foot back to brace himself and it went into the hole, and he lost his balance and fell backwards" to the bottom of the well. The gate was open at the time but the plaintiff did not know this. The elevator was then at the top floor, which floor was occupied by the Samuels Supply Company. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants' motions for directed verdicts were allowed, and the plaintiff excepted.

As the elevator well was twenty-six inches from Friend Street, and the plaintiff was not on the premises as an invitee of the defendants, they were not liable to the plaintiff. He was a trespasser and the defendants were not guilty of wanton or wilful conduct. It has been held that an excavation outside the limits of the highway does not constitute a nuisance for which the landowner is responsible. Howland v. Vincent, 10 Met. 371. McIntire v. Roberts, 149 Mass. 450. See McManus v. Thing, 194 Mass. 362.

The plaintiff relies on Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578. There the defendant laid out and paved the sidewalk on her own land in order that it should be used by travellers as the sidewalk of the street, and permitted it to remain as a part of the street to be used by foot passengers. Her conduct it was held amounted to an invitation to the public to use her land so prepared as a part of the sidewalk. These facts distinguish that case from the one before us. Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489, is not in conflict with what has here been said.

The plaintiff put in evidence regulation 15 of the elevator and escalator regulations of the department of public safety of the Commonwealth, which provides for the maintenance of gates on doors for landings or openings in outside walls and their equipment with locking devices. This regulation was intended for the safety of persons who were rightly upon the premises, and it was not established for the protection or safety of mere licensees or trespassers. See Pizzano v. Shuman, 229 Mass. 240; Brennan v. Keene, 237 Mass. 556, 562.

The verdicts for the defendants were directed properly. In each case the entry is to be

Exceptions overruled.

RICHARDSON v. WHITTIER