Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/334/334mass139.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:59:44+00:00

Document:
LILLIAN E. MARCUS vs. GRIGGS, INC.
In an action against a contractor renovating a house for injuries sustained by the plaintiff one afternoon when she struck her leg against the ragged edges of clamps on a pail of cement then standing in and obstructing an open area in the living room left as a "passageway" among cartons, boxes, a barrel and other objects, the evidence left it conjectural whether such situation then existing in the living room had been brought about by the only workman who had worked in the house on the day of the accident and who had left the pail somewhere in the living room when he quit work about two hours before the accident occurred, or by some other person, and the plaintiff could not recover.
TORT. Writ in the Superior Court dated August 13, 1954.
John J. O'Connell, for the plaintiff.
WHITTEMORE, J. There was no error in directing a verdict for the defendant in this action of tort.
way around and she agreed to the statement that "[t]hings were very visible . . . in the room so . . . [she] had no trouble seeing . . .. [T]he spoon was laying right there so she could put her hand on it, because she had been using . . . [sentence unfinished]." "[T]he cartons in the room were here and there and everywhere . . . [and the plaintiff] was in the effort of locating the one with the dish and spoon in it"; she did not have to step over the cartons." She had seen the drum in the living room before October 31 but it had always been underneath a window. On the day of the accident only Germaine was working on the premises, no painters were there because the house had all been painted, and the plumber had finished and gone. The "linoleum was laid in the bedrooms before the 31st of October; . . . the work was done by Mr. Germaine; . . . [the plaintiff] talked with Germaine and told him what tile was to go in the bathroom and . . . she saw him spread cement and put down tile and saw the container which contained the cement; on the day of the accident the dining room was completed; the living room had still the outside area to be tiled."
The following evidence is relevant to the issue presented: Germaine testified that on October 31 he worked on the premises only in the evening; that it was on October 30 that Brown told him to go to another job; that he saw the plaintiff while he was laying tiles in the bedrooms and bathrooms; that "the paste, linoleum and paper he left at the house . . . on the 30th of October in the living room . . . [where there] were paint pails, lamps, pictures, boxes, and cartons; . . . [that he left the pail] in the center of the room; . . . that he placed the pail of cement in among the cartons, and boxes . . . [i]n between the cartons and boxes where I could shove it in." He showed by pointing to a diagram just where this was, but the bill of exceptions does not inform us. Barselotti was asked (in respect of the open area in the living room), "And it was in that area where you saw the can?" (referring to what he saw just after the accident). He answered, "That's what I say. Was right in the area -- I wouldn't say it was put there."
to go to the cartons for a spoon for Barselotti. The unfinished statement that the "spoon was laying right there . . . because she had been using . . ." and the statement that the plaintiff "was in the effort of locating the one with the dish and spoon in it" suggest the possible presence of the plaintiff in the living room after her lunch or after her return from shopping.
In determining whether the plaintiff had sustained the burden of proof the judge properly would appraise the force of all the relevant evidence, and when this is done, it is apparent, we think, that any inference that it was Germaine rather than another who caused the pail to be in its position at 3:30 P.M. relative to other objects and the open area is based on possibility rather than probability. This is not enough to take the issue to the jury. Prushensky v. Pucilowski, 269 Mass. 477, 479. Burwick v. McClure, 318 Mass. 626, 629-630. LeBlanc v. Atlantic Building & Supply Co. Inc. 323 Mass. 702, 706. See Sargent v. Massachusetts Accident Co. 307 Mass. 246, 250-251. It is unnecessary to determine whether it would have been a breach of a duty owed the plaintiff to have placed the pail in the position in which it was found. See Collins v. Goodrich, 324 Mass. 251, 253-254; Flanders v. Pailey, 320 Mass. 744, 745. Compare Blackstone v. Chelmsford Foundry Co. 170 Mass. 321, 322; Cole v. L. D. Willcutt & Sons Co. 214 Mass. 453, 456.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.