## Facts

- The plaintiff was a paying passenger who had just disembarked from the defendant railroad’s train at the defendant’s station.
- While walking on the station platform about a car length from where he alighted, the plaintiff slipped on a banana peel on the platform and was injured.
- Many passengers were on the platform, and a large number of persons had just exited the arriving train.
- There was no evidence showing how long the banana peel had been on the platform, who dropped it, or that any railroad employee saw it before the fall.

## Issues

1. Whether the mere presence of a banana peel on a railroad station platform, without evidence of how long it was there or who placed it there, permits a reasonable inference of negligence sufficient to submit the case to the jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the directed verdict for the defendant.
- The court held the evidence did not permit a jury to find negligence without speculation because the peel could have been dropped moments earlier by a passenger.
- The plaintiff failed to present evidence that the railroad had actual knowledge of the hazard or that it existed long enough to charge the railroad with constructive notice.

## Legal Principles

- A premises operator or common carrier is not liable for injuries from a transient foreign substance unless the plaintiff introduces evidence supporting a reasonable inference of actual notice or constructive notice.
- Negligence cannot be inferred solely from the existence of a dangerous condition where an equally plausible explanation is that a third party created it shortly before the accident.
- The plaintiff bears the burden to produce evidence of breach; absent proof of notice or duration, a finding of negligence rests on conjecture and the case may be taken from the jury.

## Conclusion

Because the record contained no evidence that the banana peel was present long enough for the railroad to discover and remove it, or that the railroad otherwise knew of it, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove breach and the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict.


Goddard v. Bos. & Me. R.R. Co., 179 Mass. 52 (1901)