Case ID: mass_130/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lord, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Simon Donnelly vs. City of Fall River.
    Bristol.
    Oct. 26, 1880.
    Jan. 8, 1881.
    Ames & Endicott, JJ., absent.
    A notice to a city that a person has been injured by striking his foot against a gas pipe, marked in a particular manner, and projecting two inches above the sidewalk on a certain street in the city, does not sufficiently designate the place of the injury, under the St. of 1877, c. 284, § 3, if it appears that the street is two miles long.
    Tort for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by a defect in Pleasant Street in the defendant city. Answer, a general denial.
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Wilkinson, J., it appeared that, within thirty days after receiving the injury, the plaintiff served a notice in writing upon the defendant, in which it was stated that on a day named “ he was thrown to the ground on Pleasant Street in Fall River, and severely injured in consequence of his foot being caught by a gas pipe marked 6 F. R. Gas Co.,’ which projected two inches above the sidewalk on said Pleasant Street.”
    It also appeared that Pleasant Street is one of the principal streets in Fall River, and is about two miles in length; and that at the place of the injury the street is wrought with sidewalk and curbstone.
    The defendant asked the judge to rule that the plaintiff could not recover, for the reason that the notice given by him to the defendant was not sufficient, under the St. of 1877, c. 234. The judge declined so to rule; and instructed the jury that it was a question of fact for them, whether or not the plaintiff had given the defendant sufficient notice. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      M. Reed, for the defendant.
    
      Gf. Marston §• J. W. Cummings, for the plaintiff.
   Lord, J.

The notice to the city in this case was so like that of Larkin v. Boston, 128 Mass. 521, that it must necessarily be governed by the decision in that case. The statute requires the notice to state the time, place and cause of the injury. The notice in this case states the place to be “ the sidewalk on Pleasant Street.” Pleasant Street is stated in the bill of exceptions to be plie of the principal streets of the city, and is about two miles in length. To say that the defect, whether it be gas pipe, or excavation, or obstruction, is in Pleasant Street, is not, within the meaning of the statute, a statement of the place; and the presiding judge should have so ruled.

Exceptions sustained.