Hamilton v. Taylor

17 Citing cases

  1. McCarthy v. Isenberg Bros. Inc.

    321 Mass. 170 (Mass. 1947)   Cited 20 times
    In McCarthy v. Isenberg Bros. Inc. 321 Mass. 170, after a review of the Massachusetts decisions, we reaffirmed as settled law in this jurisdiction that the owner of a business building does not by the fact of retaining control of the common approaches, without more, extend a direct invitation of his own to persons who come to do business with his tenants and that such persons are limited to the rights of the tenant.

    Some of our own decisions, but not those most recent, contain language which seems consistent with this view. See, for example, Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33, 35; Marwedel v. Cook, 154 Mass. 235, 236; Coupe v. Platt, 172 Mass. 458; Wright v. Perry, 188 Mass. 268, 270; Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68, 71; Morong v. Spofford, 218 Mass. 50. The two possible views are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Holmes in O'Malley v. Twenty-five Associates, 170 Mass. 471, 478, from which it would seem that the three dissenting justices at least regarded the matter as then (1898) still open.

  2. Story v. Lyon Realty Corp.

    308 Mass. 66 (Mass. 1941)   Cited 22 times
    In Story v. Lyons Realty Corp, 308 Mass. 66 at 69-70 (1941), the court noted that while consideration is usually in the form of rent, "any consideration to support a contract is all that is required to constitute an agreement from which a tenancy may result."

    The plaintiff while a witness at the trial pointed out to the jury that there was as much light in the warehouse at the time of the accident as there would be in the court room (where the shades were partially drawn) if the electric lights were off at the time he was testifying — on a clear, pleasant morning in June. He assumed that there was an elevator in the warehouse but he could rely to a reasonable extent upon the expectation that it would be equipped with a gate. Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513, 518. Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68, 70. The light might have been ample to enable him to discover easily a gate if there were one. Lyon did not inform him of any danger when he requested him to "finish the work of getting those hops out." It cannot be said as matter of law that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in proceeding as he did in the warehouse.

  3. Lee v. Jerome Realty, Inc.

    154 N.E.2d 126 (Mass. 1958)   Cited 3 times

    It is plain from the circumstances that the question of the plaintiff's due care was for the jury. Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68. Follins v. Dill, 221 Mass. 93, 98. Exceptions overruled.

  4. Barker v. Wiksten

    126 N.E.2d 372 (Mass. 1955)

    In Murphy v. Avery Chemical Co. 240 Mass. 150, 152, it was held that one returning from delivering goods to the owner of a factory, whose premises were crossed by a railroad, was upon the railroad crossing at the implied invitation of the factory owner. See also Cavanagh v. Block, 192 Mass. 63, 64; Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68, 71; Barber v. C.W.H. Moulton Ladder Co. 231 Mass. 507, 509; Sullivan v. Saugus, 305 Mass. 127, 130; Adams v. George Lawley Son Corp. 314 Mass. 87, 91. The restrictions barred the use of the lots for commercial purposes, but the purchase and delivery of milk and eggs for consumption by the occupants of cottages upon the lots was not a use which amounted to conducting a business on the lots or changed their use from a residential to a commercial one. It was merely incidental to the maintenance of the home.

  5. Garland v. Stetson

    292 Mass. 95 (Mass. 1935)   Cited 33 times

    Nor does the evidence warrant a finding that the plaintiff was at the place of his injury through an implied invitation of the defendants by reason of the physical construction of the building or portions thereof or of any apparent preparation or adaptation of the elevator for his use. Compare Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513, 517; Marwedel v. Cook, 152 Mass. 235, 237; Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426, 427; Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68, 71; Stone v. Lewis, 215 Mass. 594, 597; Maran v. Peabody, 228 Mass. 432; Chestnut v. Sawyer, 235 Mass. 46, 50. The elevator car obviously was designed and furnished for the carriage of freight.

  6. Peirce v. Hunnewell

    189 N.E. 77 (Mass. 1934)   Cited 14 times
    In Peirce v. Hunnewell, 285 Mass. 287, at page 290, this court said that "where the only invitation to the plaintiff to use the elevator or common passageway is that extended by or through the tenant, the plaintiff is limited as against the landlord to a use of the elevator or common passageway on the same terms as the tenant.

    Neither do they argue that the absence of effective guard and light was due to the transient misconduct of some recent user of the elevator, without fault on the part of those having responsibility for its care, as in Hunter v. Goldstein, 267 Mass. 183, Prushensky v. Pucilowski, 269 Mass. 477, Todd v. Winslow, 278 Mass. 588, and McBreen v. Collins, 284 Mass. 253. They do not argue, either, that the plaintiff was negligent as matter of law. Wright v. Perry, 188 Mass. 268. Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68, 70, 71. Taylor v. Hennessey, 200 Mass. 263, 265. Follins v. Dill, 221 Mass. 93, 98, 99. Lally v. A.W. Perry, Inc. 277 Mass. 463, 465.

  7. Chichas v. Foley Bros. Grocery Co.

    73 Mont. 575 (Mont. 1925)   Cited 24 times
    In Chichas v. Foley Bros. Grocery Co., 1925, 73 Mont. 575, 236 P. 361, the court held that "an owner or occupant of lands or buildings, who directly or by implication invites or induces others to go thereon or therein, owes to such person a duty to have his premises in a reasonably safe condition, and to give warning of latent or concealed perils."

    Citing: Montague v. Hanson, 38 Mont. 376, 99 P. 1063; Wilsey v. Jewett Bros. Co., 122 Iowa, 315, 98 N.W. 114; Christopher Co. v. Russell, 63 Fla. 191, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 564, 565, 58 So. 45; Pauckner v. Wakem, 231 Ill. 276, 83 N.E. 202; Shawnee v. Drake, 69 Okla. 209, L.R.A. 1918D, 813, 171 P. 727; Downing v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 192 Iowa, 1250, 20 A.L.R. 1138, 1250, 184 N.W. 722; Conway v. Chas. H. Wood Co., 113 Minn. 476, 129 N.W. 1045; Gardner v. Waterloo Cream Separator Co., 134 Iowa, 6, 111 N.W. 316; Fort v. Reid Ice Cream Co. (N.J.), 119 A. 638; 3. Liability of proprietor for injury to person other than passenger by elevator, see notes in Ann. Cas. 1912d 531; Ann. Cas. 1915B, 572. Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68, 80 N.E. 592; Kress Co. v. Markline, 117 Miss. 37, 77 So. 858. It is admitted that plaintiff did not come to the premises at the express invitation of defendants and, of course, on the other hand, it must be admitted that coming as he did to purchase goods he came at its implied invitation; but it is our contention that such implied invitation was only one to use the entrance and exit and such portions of the premises as were provided for customers, and did not include the privilege of wandering around blindly in the warehouse of the defendant company.

  8. Cussen v. Weeks

    122 N.E. 757 (Mass. 1919)   Cited 10 times
    In Cussen vs. Weeks, 232 Mass. 563, 122 N.E. 757. plaintiff's intestate, an employee of the lessee of the second floor of the building, fell when he leaned slightly against the gate at the elevator opening and looked up, when almost instantly the gate gave way and left its guards and swung out into the elevator well and plaintiff's intestate fell to the bottom of the well.

    On the evidence the jury could find that the gate and its appliances were in an improper and unsafe condition and that the defendants by the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered and remedied this condition before the accident. Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68. Follins v. Dill, supra. Plainly the issue of the plaintiff's due care was for the jury. Exceptions sustained.

  9. English v. Thomas

    149 P. 906 (Okla. 1915)   Cited 13 times

    " In Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68, 80 N.E. 592, the second paragraph of the syllabus is applicable to this case. It is as follows:

  10. Follins v. Dill

    108 N.E. 929 (Mass. 1915)   Cited 16 times
    In Follins v. Dill, 221 Mass. 93, at page 98, this court said "The gates were so connected with the elevator that express and definite stipulation would be required to place responsibility for their care upon a tenant when the elevators remained in care of the landlord."

    The gate fell into its place when his companion, Cole, walking behind him, was about two feet from the well. Cary v. Arlington Mills, 148 Mass. 338. Hamilton v. Taylor, 195 Mass. 68. Humphreys v. Portsmouth Trust Guaranty Co. 184 Mass. 422. See Hydren v. Webb, 219 Mass. 542, 546.