
    Sarah C. Murphy vs. City of Somerville.
    Middlesex.
    November 12, 1925. —
    November 13, 1925.
    Present: Rugg, C.J., Braley, Pierce, Wait, & Sanderson, JJ.
    
      Way, Public: defect. Evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof.
    At the trial of an action of tort against a municipality for personal injuries received by falling upon a public sidewalk, there was evidence that at the end of a brick sidewalk there were cobblestones, and then a dirt sidewalk, and that at or near this place there was a depression about six inches deep; that at the time of the plaintiff’s injury snow and ice covered the whole sidewalk; that there was “quite a lot of ice there”; and that the plaintiff slipped upon the ice at “a space about that deep, I should say two or three inches.” Held, that
    (1) It was a question of fact whether the sidewalk, apart from the snow and ice, was defective;
    (2) It was a question of fact whether the ice was the sole cause of the injury or whether the defective condition of the sidewalk apart from snow and ice was a contributing cause of the accident;
    (3) It was proper to submit the case to the jury.
    Tort for personal injuries' received when the plaintiff fell on a sidewalk on Hawkins Street in Somerville. Writ dated January 8, 1923.
    In the Superior Court, the action was tried before Sisk, J. The plaintiff was asked whether or not she noticed where she fell and what she saw there, and replied, "Well, it was a place about that deep, I should say about two or three inches.” Other material evidence is described in the opinion. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $4,000. The defendant alleged exceptions.
    The case was submitted on briefs.
    
      R. M. Smith, Assistant City Solicitor, for the defendant.
    
      W. M. Smith, for the plaintiff.
   By the Court.

This is an action of tort to recover compensation for personal injuries received by falling upon a public sidewalk.

There was evidence tending to show that at the end of a brick sidewalk there were cobblestones, and then a dirt sidewalk, and that at or near this place there was a space about six inches deep; and that at the time of the plaintiff’s injury snow and ice covered the whole sidewalk; that there was quite a lot of ice there ”; and that she slipped upon the ice. It was a question of fact whether the sidewalk, apart from the snow and ice, was defective. Williams v. Winthrop, 213 Mass. 581. Hamlet v. Watertown, 248 Mass. 473. Lamb v. Worcester, 177 Mass. 82. It was also a question of fact whether the ice was the sole cause of the injury or whether the defective condition of the sidewalk when free from snow and ice was a contributing cause of the accident. Newton v. Worcester, 174 Mass. 181. Naze v. Hudson, 250 Mass. 368. It was proper to submit the case to the jury.

Judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict.  