John Daley v. Gustavus Kinsman (and another) — Summary of Opinion

Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Essex)

Panel: Holmes, C.J., Morton, Lathrop, Barker, Hammond, JJ.

Heard: November 5, 1902. Decided: November 25, 1902.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff brought a tort action for injuries sustained when he fell down an elevator well in a tenement house owned by the defendants. The plaintiff had gone to the defendants' building to visit the tenement of one Andrews to do his washing. Previously the plaintiff had been to the house on three occasions but had not entered Andrews's tenement, having gone only to the front door.

On the evening of September 13, 1899, between nine and ten o'clock, the plaintiff went to the front door and found it locked. Without making inquiries about why no one answered, he went to the rear of the building — a place he had not previously visited — where he saw three successive platforms connected by stairs. He ascended to the uppermost platform in very dark conditions, saw what he thought was a doorway (but which was actually the entrance to an elevator shaft), made apparently no further examination, walked from the head of the stairs into the opening, fell down the shaft, and was injured.

In the Superior Court, Justice Maynard ordered a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff took exceptions to that ruling. The Supreme Judicial Court considered whether the plaintiff had exercised due care.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under the facts as found, the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care (i.e., whether his conduct constituted contributory negligence) such that the verdict for the defendants was proper.

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
Campbell v. Abbott, 176 Mass. 246	The opinion cites this case in support of the proposition that the plaintiff's conduct under the described circumstances constituted negligence.	The court invoked Campbell v. Abbott as authority to support its conclusion that, given the darkness, the plaintiff's unfamiliarity with the rear of the building, his failure to make inquiries, and his apparent failure to examine the opening before walking into it, his conduct was negligent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court expressly stated it was unnecessary to consider all asserted grounds of defense because the case turned on whether the plaintiff had exercised due care. The court recited the material facts:

The plaintiff had visited the house only three prior times and had never entered Andrews's tenement.
On the night in question (between 9 and 10 p.m.) the front door was locked; the plaintiff made no inquiries about why no one answered and proceeded to the rear of the house, which he had never before visited.
He saw three successive platforms and ascended to the uppermost platform in very dark conditions and at a late hour.
He did not see any light or any indication that anyone was in the tenement.
At the head of the stairs he saw an opening which he apparently took to be the entrance to the tenement; he made no further examination and walked into the opening, which proved to be an elevator shaft, and fell.

From these facts the court concluded that the plaintiff's conduct was negligent. The court relied on Campbell v. Abbott in support of that conclusion. Because the plaintiff failed to exercise due care under the circumstances, the court upheld the Superior Court's disposition.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care, and the exceptions taken by the plaintiff were overruled.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the verdict and judgment for the defendants, as ordered by the Superior Court (Maynard, J.), stand. The opinion does not articulate broader doctrinal changes or the creation of new precedent beyond applying existing authority (including Campbell v. Abbott) to conclude that the plaintiff's actions amounted to contributory negligence under the facts presented.

Show full summary ...

JOHN DALEY vs. GUSTAVUS KINSMAN another.

Negligence, Contributory. The plaintiff on a dark night, seeking to go to a tenement on the third floor of the defendant's building and finding the front door locked, went to the back of the building where he never had been before and ascended the back stairs until he reached the last of three successive platforms. Here he walked into an opening, which he thought was a doorway, but which proved to be an elevator well down which he fell and was injured. Held, that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of due care.

HAMMOND, J.

It is unnecessary to consider all the grounds of defence, as we do not think that the plaintiff has shown that he was in the exercise of due care.

Before the accident, he had been at the house upon only three occasions, at neither of which had he entered the Andrews tenement. He had gone simply to the front door of the tenement. Between nine and ten o'clock in the evening of September 13, 1899, he went as before to the same front door and found it locked. Without making any inquiries as to the cause for the non-appearance of any one at the door, he went around to the rear of the house for the purpose of trying the back door. He never had been there before, but he saw the three platforms and the stairs leading to the same, and he ascended to the upper platform. It was very dark, and he was in a strange place at quite a late hour in the evening. It does not appear that he saw any light or any other thing whatever to indicate whether there was any one in the tenement. Seeing the entrance to the elevator shaft and apparently making no other examination, he assumed it to be the entrance to the tenement, and walked directly from the head of the stairs and fell into it. Under the circumstances such conduct seems to us negligent. Campbell v. Abbott, 176 Mass. 246.

Exceptions overruled.

DALEY v. KINSMAN