Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceliabilitytrustsustained
plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencetrustsustained

Related Cases

In re Gross’ Estate, 216 Cal.App.2d 563, 31 Cal.Rptr. 281
View Case »
Buford v. Gruber, 223 Mo. 231, 122 S.W. 717
View Case »
In re Hanenberg, 777 N.W.2d 62, 2010 ND 8
View Case »
Matter of Crippen, 36 B.R. 7
View Case »
In re Estate of Lewis, 442 So.2d 290
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Parmenter v. Barstow, 22 R.I. 245, 47 A. 365, 63 L.R.A. 227

Facts

Minnie M. Parmenter filed a lawsuit against Amos C. Barstow and other trustees, claiming negligence after she was injured by stone chips while walking past a building owned by the defendants. The incident occurred on January 14, 1895, when the defendants were engaged in cutting stone in a careless manner. Parmenter alleged that the defendants had a duty to maintain the property and the adjacent sidewalk in a safe condition, and she sought $25,000 in damages for her injuries, which included total blindness in her right eye.

The declaration alleges that the defendants on the 14th day of January, 1895,—the date of the happening of the accident hereinafter referred to,—and for a long time prior thereto, were the owners of a certain building situated at No. 37 Weybosset street, in said city, and that as such owners it was their duty to keep the same, and the sidewalk contiguous thereto, in proper repair, so that persons lawfully walking along the same might not be injured in life or limb; that on the day and year aforesaid the plaintiff was passing along said street as a lawful traveler thereon, in the exercise of due care; that the defendants, their agents and servants, were then and there engaged in cutting and chiseling stone in a careless and negligent manner, and that by reason of their negligence the plaintiff was struck in each eye by chips or pieces of stone which were caused to fly in her face by reason of the negligence of the defendants, whereby she has been rendered totally blind in her right eye, and otherwise injured, wherefore she sues to recover damages, which she lays at $25,000.

Issue

Whether the trustees could be held personally liable for negligence resulting in injuries to a lawful traveler on the sidewalk adjacent to their property.

Whether the trustees could be held personally liable for negligence resulting in injuries to a lawful traveler on the sidewalk adjacent to their property.

Rule

Trustees of an express trust of realty are not liable in their official capacity for injuries resulting from their negligence in leaving the premises in a dangerous condition, unless the defect is caused by their own act.

Trustees of an express trust of realty are not liable in their official capacity for an injury resulting from their negligence in leaving the premises in a dangerous condition.

Analysis

The court analyzed the legal responsibilities of the trustees, noting that while they held the legal title to the property, their duties and liabilities were personal and not merely representative of the beneficiaries. The court emphasized that the trustees were not acting as agents of the beneficiaries and thus could not escape personal liability for their negligence. The court distinguished this case from others involving receivers, who do not hold legal title to the property.

The court analyzed the legal responsibilities of the trustees, noting that while they held the legal title to the property, their duties and liabilities were personal and not merely representative of the beneficiaries.

Conclusion

The court sustained the demurrer, ruling that the trustees were not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff due to their negligence.

The court sustained the demurrer, ruling that the trustees were not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff due to their negligence.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the trustees were not personally liable for the negligence alleged by the plaintiff.

The defendants prevailed in the case because the court found that the trustees were not personally liable for the negligence alleged by the plaintiff.

You must be