Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railroad Co.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1911 · Torts

TortsNegligencePremises liabilityCommon carrierbanana peelconstructive noticeforeign substanceplatform safety

Facts

The plaintiff arrived on the defendant's car at the upper level of the Dudley Street terminal and, after the crowd had left the platform, asked a uniformed employee for directions to another car. As she followed a few feet behind him along a narrow platform toward the indicated stairway, she slipped on a banana peel and was injured. Witnesses described the peel as dry, gritty, flattened, trampled, and entirely black, with no yellow remaining. The defendant had an employee at the station all the time, and employees had the duty to observe and remove anything on the platform that interfered with the safety of travelers.

Issue

Was there sufficient evidence of the defendant's negligence to require submission to the jury where the plaintiff slipped on a banana peel whose appearance suggested it had been on the platform for a considerable time?

Rule

A defendant responsible for keeping premises reasonably safe for passengers may be found negligent when the condition and appearance of a foreign substance permit an inference that it had remained there a considerable time in a place where employees, if performing their duty, would have seen and removed it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Nora Patel stepped from a commuter platform toward the exit and slipped on a wad of lettuce. Two bystanders said it was dark brown, dried out, ground into the concrete, and covered with grit, and station attendants were assigned to watch the platform throughout the afternoon for hazards affecting passengers.

Is there sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find the transit operator negligent?

Explanation. The majority rule is that negligence may be inferred when the appearance and condition of a foreign substance permit an inference that it remained on the premises a considerable time in a place where employees, performing their duty, would have seen and removed it. Here, the lettuce was dark, dried, gritty, and ground in, which supports constructive notice. The defendant's duty is reasonable safety, not strict liability, and direct proof of who dropped the substance is unnecessary.