Buzzell v. R. H. White Co.
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Sterns v. Highland Hotel Co. (Mass. 1940)
- Clouart v. Atlas Shoppers World (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1965)
- Norton v. Chandler & Co. (Mass. 1915)
- Shebester v. Triple Crown Insurers (Okla. 1992)
- McCallum ex rel. McCallum v. Brodsky (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)
- Rutherford v. United States (District Court, D. Wyoming 1950)
- Sockwell v. Lucas & Jenkins Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1944)
- Hansen v. Henrici's, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 1943)
- Callaghan v. R. H. White Co. (Mass. 1939)
- Eyerly v. Baker (Md. 1935)
- Promisel v. Hotels Statler Corp. (Mass. 1934)
- Johnson v. City of Boston (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)
- Voci v. Sears (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1983)
- Kraft v. Higgins (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1975)
- Dworkin v. San Juan Intercontinental Hotel Corp. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1964)
- Dworkin v. San Juan Intercontinental Hotel Corp. (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1964)
- Flynn v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (Mass. 1959)
- Blake v. Blake (Idaho 1949)
- Waugh v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Mass. 1944)
- Rosenberg v. Hartman (Mass. 1943)
- Monks v. Hurley (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1942)
- Rosenberg v. Hartman (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1942)
- Tuttle v. Kline's, Inc. (Mo. Ct. App. 1935)
- Feith v. Kresge Department Store Corp. (N.J. 1935)
- Kelley v. Jordan Marsh Co. (Mass. 1932)
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
This case is in the main governed by Smith v. Johnson, 219 Mass. 142. The door in question here was a revolving door and not a swinging door as was the door in Smith v. Johnson. Both kinds of doors are in common use, and in that respect the cases are alike. There is no more reason for an attendant in case of a revolving door than there was in case of the swinging doors in question in .Smith v. Johnson.
The fact that some revolving doors in use have a "governing device to control the speed of the door and that the door here in question did not have it or any other device to control its speed
The fact that rubber strips which were stretched from the top of each wing of the revolving door to the bottom of it and along the outer edge of the wing were somewhat worn was not a ground on which it could be found that the defendant was negligent. In the agreed facts on which the case was submitted it is stated that these rubber strips were put On the door for the purpose of preventing the passage of air, and at the same time giving the door an opportunity to swing in its framework without the wood wings coming in contact with the framework. When the rubber strips are not worn and come in contact with the circular framework of the door, they have some retarding effect upon the speed of the door, preventing the door from spinning. That is to say the rubber strips were not put on for the purpose of retarding the swing of the door. It follows that the fact that they were worn was not evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant.
The conclusion reached in Smith v. Johnson appears to be that reached in other jurisdictions. See Pardington v. Abraham, 93 App. Div. (N. Y.) 359, affirmed in 183 N. Y. 553; Dolan v. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co. 26 R. I. 198.
The only case of a revolving door which has come'to our attention is an unreported case of Fechney v. Providence Building Co., referred to in Dolan v. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co. ubi supra, at page 199.
The entry must be
Judgment for the defendant.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.