Gates v. Milan
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence on the part of the defendant town in repairing a highway, whereby the plaintiff’s intestate, while employed by the defendant as a laborer in making the repairs, received fatal injuries.
Read the full summary
Case, for negligence on the part of the defendant town in repairing a highway, whereby the plaintiff’s intestate, while employed by the defendant as a laborer in making the repairs, received fatal injuries. The declaration alleges that the town was doing the work voluntarily under the provisions of chapter 35, Laws of 1905, and chapter 60, Laws of 1907. The defendant demurred to the declaration, and the questions of law raised thereby were transferred without a ruling from the December "term, 1910, of the superior court by Pike, J.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
It has been decided by numerous cases that a town in the performance of the duty of repairing its highways (P. S., c. 75, s. 1) acts in a public or governmental capacity. “The liability of towns in respect to highways does not differ in character or extent from that which would attach to the state if it provided and maintained highways directly. It depends upon the same conditions. It is-limited to that which the state permits, as set forth in the statutes on the subject.” Sargent v. Gilford, 66 N. H. 543. See Hall v. Concord, 71 N. H. 367; O’Brien v. Derry, 73 N. H. 198, 203; Wheeler v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tindley v. City of SalemMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1884
- Curran v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
3Cited by13 opinions
- Merrill v. City of ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1974
- P. Lorillard Co. v. ClaySupreme Court of Virginia · 1920
- Gunther v. Board of County Road CommissionersMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Fisher v. Delaware TownshipSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
- Gilman v. ConcordSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.