Lyon v. City of Cambridge
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pecorelli v. City of Worcester (Mass. 1940)
- Cameron v. City of Somerville (Mass. 1934)
- Harris v. City of Genoa (Neb. 1923)
- Hill v. City of Boston (Mass. 1918)
- Blain v. Incorporated Town of Montezuma (Iowa 1911)
- Aiken v. City of Columbus (Ind. 1906)
- Dickinson v. City of Boston (Mass. 1905)
- Spillane v. City of Fitchburg (Mass. 1900)
- Hubbell v. City of Viroqua (Wis. 1886)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It was necessary for the plaintiff, within thirty days after receiving his injury, to give written notice to the defendant of the cause thereof. Pub. Sts. c. 52, § 19. This was a condition precedent to his right of recovery. Shea v. Lowell, 132 Mass. 187. The alleged defect relied on as the cause of the plaintiff’s injury was a depression in the sidewalk, caused by the intersection of a passageway, which depression he was unable to see by reason of the darkness. But the darkness and the omission to light the street did not constitute a defect in the way for which the defendant is liable under the statute. Macomber v. Taunton, 100 Mass. 255. Nor is the defendant under any greater liability by reason of the city ordinance. Lorillard v. Monroe, 1 Kernan, 392, 396. Bowie v. Alexandria, 3 Pet. 398, 409. 2 Dillon Mun. Corp. (3d ed.) § 950. In the notice, no mention was made of the depression, which alone constituted the supposed defect. The Legislature having prescribed this condition, and the plaintiff having failed to comply with it, we can do no otherwise than hold that he is not entitled to maintain his action.
Exceptions overruled■
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.