Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386, 1911 Mass. LEXIS 806 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant business has constructive notice of a hazardous condition if circumstantial evidence suggests the condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered and remedied it.
Facts:
- The plaintiff arrived on one of the defendant's train cars at the Dudley Street terminal.
- After the crowd dispersed, she asked a uniformed employee for directions to another car.
- The employee indicated a stairway, and the plaintiff followed a few feet behind him.
- While walking on the platform, the plaintiff slipped on a banana peel and was injured.
- Witnesses described the peel as 'black, flattened out and gritty,' 'dry and gritty,' and as if it had been 'trampled over a good deal.'
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a trial court.
- At the close of evidence, by agreement of the parties, the trial judge ordered a verdict for the defendant.
- The case was then reported to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for determination.
- The parties agreed that if the higher court found there was any evidence of negligence, judgment should be entered for the plaintiff; otherwise, the verdict for the defendant would stand.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence of the appearance and condition of a hazard, such as a blackened and trampled banana peel, suffice to allow a jury to infer that the hazard existed long enough to put a property owner on constructive notice of its presence?
Opinions:
Majority - Rugg, J.
Yes. The appearance and condition of the banana peel could allow a jury to infer that it had been on the platform for a considerable period of time. This circumstantial evidence is sufficient to suggest that the defendant's employees, who had a duty to keep the station reasonably safe, would have seen and removed the peel if they had performed their duty with reasonable care. This distinguishes the case from situations where a hazard might have been dropped only a moment before an accident. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant to be submitted to a jury.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational example of the legal principle of 'constructive notice' in premises liability torts. It establishes that a plaintiff does not need direct evidence (like a witness seeing when a hazard was created) to prove a defendant should have known about a danger. Instead, circumstantial evidence, such as the physical state of the hazard itself, can be used to infer the passage of time. This lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases and reinforces the duty of property owners to actively monitor and maintain safe conditions.
