T
T
T

Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1911

208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386

Listen to the opinion:

Player

Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff slipped on a banana peel on defendant's platform. The banana peel appeared as if it had been there for some time, long enough that an employee of the defendants should have seen it and cleaned it up.

Rule of Law and Holding

"The obligation rested upon the defendant to keep its station reasonably safe for its passengers." Because the inference is drawn that it was there for some time, the defendants are negligent for leaving their platform in a dangerous condition.

Edited Opinion

Note: The following opinion was edited by AudioCaseFiles' staff. © 2008 Courtroom Connect, Inc.


OPINION BY: RUGG, J.

The plaintiff arrived on one of defendant's cars on the upper level of the Dudley Street terminal; other passengers arrived on same car, but it does not appear how many. She waited until the crowd had left the platform, when she inquired of one of defendant's uniformed employees the direction to another car. He walked along a narrow platform, and she, following a few feet behind him toward the stairway he had indicated, was injured by slipping upon a banana peel. It was described by several who examined it in these terms: it "felt dry and gritty as if there were dirt upon it," as if "trampled over a good deal," as "flattened down, and black in color," "every bit of it was black, there wasn't a particle of yellow" and as "black, flattened out and gritty." It was one of the duties of employees of the defendant, of whom there was one at this station all the time, to observe and remove whatever was upon the platform to interfere with the safety of travellers. These might have been found to be the facts.

The inference might have been drawn from the appearance and condition of the banana peel that it had been upon the platform a considerable period of time, in such position that it would have been seen and removed by the employees of the defendant if they had performed their duty. Therefore, there is something on which to base a conclusion that it was not dropped a moment before by a passenger, and Goddard v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 179 Mass. 52, and Lyons v. Boston Elevated Railway, 204 Mass. 227, are plainly distinguishable. The obligation rested upon the defendant to keep its station reasonably safe for its passengers. It might have been found that the platform was suffered to remain in such condition as to be a menace to those rightfully walking upon it. Hence there was evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, which should have been submitted to the jury. [. . .]

[Judgment for the plaintiff.]