## Facts

- Clemence Lorenzo, a Spanish immigrant newly arrived in Massachusetts, was walking along a paved area that appeared continuous with the public sidewalk.
- Maria Wirth was a tenant in possession of a Boston house under a lease; a coal hole used to deliver coal into the cellar was located on land within her leasehold, about 18 inches in front of the house and more than two feet outside the street line.
- The space between the street line and the house looked like part of the sidewalk and gave little ordinary notice that it was private, aside from occasional tenant use (e.g., leaving barrels) and nearby building steps extending toward the street line.
- Wirth ordered coal to be delivered to the premises.
- Coal-delivery workers brought a coal wagon to the location, uncovered the coal hole, and handled coal with shovels; coal lay on the sidewalk area between the wagon and the house.
- There was evidence that the incident occurred when it was dark, and witnesses indicated the workers had stopped delivering coal by the time Lorenzo fell.
- Lorenzo stepped from the steps of a neighboring building onto the coal and then stepped into the open coal hole, which was about 30 inches from the corner of those steps, and she was injured.
- Lorenzo sued Wirth for negligence.
- At trial, the judge refused Wirth’s request for a directed verdict, and the jury returned a verdict for Lorenzo.
- Wirth filed exceptions, arguing that the circumstances were enough warning as a matter of law and that negligence should not have been submitted to the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the undisputed physical circumstances of the coal delivery (including the coal, wagon, tools, and workers, and the evidence about darkness and timing), Wirth breached any duty of reasonable care to pedestrians as a matter of law.
2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for Wirth and allowing the jury to find negligence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court sustained Wirth’s exceptions and set aside the plaintiff’s verdict.
- The court treated the question as one of duty: with the defendant’s acts and the visible situation essentially undisputed, the court could decide whether those acts amounted to a breach of duty.
- The court held that the visible circumstances associated with coal delivery (including a heap or pile of coal and the delivery setup) could constitute sufficient warning to an ordinary sidewalk user that a coal hole might be open nearby.
- Because the situation was the type of simple, recurring street-side condition for which courts may fix a standard of conduct, the court concluded there was no negligence for the jury to find on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- When the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding physical facts are fully known and not meaningfully disputed, the question is whether there was a breach of duty; in such settings a court may resolve negligence as a matter of law.
- In simple, commonly recurring conditions that are largely matters of eyesight, a court may set the minimum standard of reasonable care rather than leave the standard to a jury in each case.
- An obvious-warning analysis may apply: a coal pile and delivery-related conditions on a sidewalk can be a warning, by ordinary experience, that an open coal hole may be present to receive the coal.
- The negligence standard is objective and community-based; the duty is measured by what an ordinary person would recognize from the visible situation, not by a particular pedestrian’s unfamiliarity with local practices.
- A defendant is not required, as a matter of law, to provide special protection tailored to those who do not perceive a warning that would alert an ordinary observer, even though such persons may lawfully use the streets.

## Conclusion

The court held that, given the observable coal-delivery conditions, Wirth had done what the law required to warn ordinary pedestrians of the risk of an open coal hole, so there was no breach of duty as a matter of law; the jury’s verdict for Lorenzo was therefore set aside after the Supreme Judicial Court sustained Wirth’s exceptions.


Lorenzo v. Wirth, 49 N.E. 1010 (1898)