Goodwin v. Concord
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, to recover for damages to an automobile caused by a defective culvert. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff drove off the end of a culvert in turning out to pass an approaching automobile. There was nothing to indicate the existence of the culvert nor to notify a traveler that it was not safe to turn out in the way the plaintiff did.
Read the full summary
Case, to recover for damages to an automobile caused by a defective culvert. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff drove off the end of a culvert in turning out to pass an approaching automobile. There was nothing to indicate the existence of the culvert nor to notify a traveler that it was not safe to turn out in the way the plaintiff did. Transferred from the October term, 1919, of the superior court by Branch, J., on the defend-’ ant’s exceptions to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict and to the argument of counsel. Other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The test to determine whether a culvert is sufficient for the travel thereon, Laws 1893, c. 59, s. 1, is to inquire whether it is such a culvert as the ordinary man would maintain in that situation. In other words there is no merit in the defendant’s contention that the length of the culvert was irrelevant to the issue of its sufficiency.
If we assume that the fact the plaintiff was not paying particular attention to the ground over which he was driving at the instant the accident happened is conclusive of his negligence, it does not follow that he cannot recover; for the test to determine…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hall v. Wentworth's LocationSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
- Munroe v. DeerfieldSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929