Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of MA - 1911

Facts:
P arrived on one of D's cars. P asked one of D's employees the direction to another car.
While following him, she slipped and fell on a banana peel. The peel felt dry, gritty, and dirty as if it were trampled over a good deal. It was black with no yellow.
It was one of the duties of D to observe and remove whatever was upon the platform to interfere with the safety of travelers.

Procedural History:
Trial court directed verdict for D.
MA Supreme Judicial Court reversed, found for P.

Issues:
Can a P utilize circumstantial evidence to prove a case in negligence?

Holding/Rule:
A P may utilize circumstantial evidence to prove a case in negligence.

Reasoning:
The inference might have been draw from the appearance and condition of the banana that it had been on the platform for a long time.
If it had been there for a long time, it should have been seen and removed by the D's employees if they had been reasonably careful in performing their duties.
Thus, there is something on which to base a conclusion that it was not dropped a moment before it was slipped upon.
The obligation rested upon the D to keep its station reasonably safe for its passengers.

Dissent:
None.

Goddard v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co. (1901) (Holmes C.J.)

Supreme Judicial Court of MA - 1901

Facts:

• P slipped on a banana peel lying on the platform at D's station.
• P was a passenger on a car that just arrived. There were many passengers on the platform.

Procedural History:

• Trial court directed verdict for D.
• MA Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issues:

• Is a showing of a dangerous condition in an area of D's control sufficient to bring a claim in negligence against D?

Holding/Rule:

• A mere showing of a dangerous condition in an area of D's control is not sufficient to bring a claim in negligence against D.

Reasoning:

• The banana peel could have been dropped within a minute by any of the people who were leaving the train.
• D would, thus, not be liable in such a case. Since there is no further evidence, D must prevail.

Dissent:

• None.

Notes:

• None.