Case Name: Margaret McLean vs. City of Boston
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1901-11-21
Citations: 180 Mass. 69
Docket Number: 
Parties: Margaret McLean vs. City of Boston.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 180
Pages: 69–71

Head Matter:
Margaret McLean vs. City of Boston.
Norfolk.
November 20, 1901.
November 21, 1901.
Present: Holmes, C. J., Knowlton, Lathrop, Hammond, & Loring, JJ.
Way, Defect in highway, Statutory notice.
Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 19, provides that in order to recover for injuries caused by a defect in a highway the person so injured must give notice of the time, place and cause of the injury within thirty days. St. 1894, c. 389, § 1, provides that no defendant shall take advantage of an insufficiency of such a notice without giving the plaintiff within five days of its receipt a notification in writing that the notice is insufficient and requesting a further notice forthwith. “ And if the person legally authorized to give such notice shall, within five days after the receipt of such notification and request for a further written notice, give a further written notice complying with the law as to the time, place and cause of the injury or damage; such notice shall be of the same legal effect as if it had been given at the time of the original notice, and shall be considered as a part thereof.” A notice given to a city under Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 19, was defective in not naming the place of the accident. Within five days the city notified the plaintiff that his notice was insufficient and requested a further notice. More than five days after he received this notification but within thirty days from the time of the accident, the plaintiff served on the city a notice good in all respects if served in time. Held, that the notice was good, a sufficient notice given within thirty days being none the less so because the plaintiff had given an insufficient one before.
Tobt to recover for injuries alleged to have heen caused by a defect in a highway in the city of Boston. Writ dated July 31, 1900.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bishop, J., the only question of law raised was in regard to the sufficiency of the notice required by the statute. It appeared, that the injury occurred on April 8, 1900. On April 30, a notice of the alleged injuries and claim for damages was served on the defendant, which was defective in not naming the place of the accident. On May 1, the inspector of claims of the defendant notified the plaintiff’s attorneys that the notice was insufficient and requested them to give a further notice. On May 8, the plaintiff served on the city a notice in all respects sufficient if served in time.
St. 1894, c. 389, § 1, is as follows: “ In an action to recover for bodily injury, or damage to a person in his property, hereafter sustained, no defendant shall avail himself in defence of such action of any omission to state in the written notice now required by law, the time, place or cause of the injury or damage, unless, within five days after the receipt of a written notice given by the person entitled to give the same within the time now required by law, which notice shall refer to the injury or injuries sustained and claim damages or payment therefor, the person or corporation receiving such notice, or some one in his or its behalf, shall give to the person injured, or to the person giving or serving such notice in behalf of the person injured, or to the executor or administrator of the person injured, a notification in writing that the notice given is not in compliance with the law, and requesting forthwith a further written notice which' shall comply with the law. And if the person legally authorized to give such notice shall, within five days after the receipt of such notification and request for a further written notice, give a further written notice complying with the law as to the time, place and cause of the injury or damage; such notice shall be of the same legal effect as if it had been given at the time of the original notice, and shall be considered as a part thereof.”
The defendant requested the judge to rule, that the plaintiff having served a notice on the defendant which was defective in stating the place of the injury, and having been served with a notice requesting a further written notice which should comply with the law, and the plaintiff' not having given a further written notice complying with the law as to the time, place and cause of the injury or damage within five days of the receipt of the request for a further written notice which should comply with the law, the plaintiff could not recover. The judge refused so to rule, and submitted the case to the jury.
The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,084; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
S. M. Child, for the defendant.
D. W. Murray, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court.
A sufficient notice given within thirty days is none the worse that the plaintiff has given an insufficient one before.
Exceptions overruled.