Case Name: Emeline P. Pierce vs. City of New Bedford
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1880-10-27
Citations: 129 Mass. 534
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emeline P. Pierce vs. City of New Bedford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 534–535

Head Matter:
Emeline P. Pierce vs. City of New Bedford.
Bristol.
October 26. — 27, 1880.
Ames & Endicott, JJ., absent.
A boy coasting upon a liand-sled is not a defect or want of repair in a highway, for which a city is liable to a person struck by the moving sled.
Tort. The declaration alleged that there were in the city of New Bedford two public streets, called Pearl Street and Purchase Street, which crossed each other at right angles, and which the city was bound to keep' in repair and reasonably safe and convenient for travellers with their horses; teams and carriages at all seasons of the year; that for several days previous to January 11, 1879, boys had been and were in the habit of coasting and sliding with sleds upon Pearl Street, without hindrance or interruption from the authorities of the city; that the policemen on duty in that part of the city had knowledge of the coasting and sliding; that while the plaintiff, on the day above named, was travelling and riding along Purchase Street and crossing Pearl Street, using due care, a boy or boys, coasting and sliding on Pearl Street, ran into and violently against the carriage of the plaintiff, throwing her out upon the ground and seriously injuring her; that by e. 26, § 16, of the city ordinances, “ no person shall play at ball or fly a kite, raise or inflate a balloon, coast or slide down hill upon the snow or ice on a sled or other vehicle, use a bow arid arrow, throw or propel in any manner stones, snowballs or other missiles, or play at any game or do any act by which the streets, ways or sidewalks may be obstructed, or the passengers incommoded or exposed to injury; ” and that the city had due and proper notice, under the statute, of the time, place and cause of said injury.
The defendant demurred to the declaration, on the ground that it set forth no cause of action; the Superior Court sustained the demurrer; and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
W. C. Parker, Jr., for the plaintiff.
F. A. Milliken, for the defendant, was not called upon.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The declaration shows no cause of action against the defendant. A boy coasting upon a hand-sled is not a defect or want of repair in the highway, for which the city is liable to a person struck by the moving sled. St. 1877, c. 234. Vinal v. Dorchester, 7 Gray, 421. Shepherd v. Chelsea, 4 Allen, 113. Barber v. Roxbury, 11 Allen, 318. Hutchinson v. Concord, 41 Vt. 271. Judgment for the defendant.