Legal Opinion

Nolette v. Manchester Rendering Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 5, 1924PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.

The defendants base their contention that the court erred when it denied their motion for a directed verdict on the proposition that it conclusively appears that the place where the accident happened was neither one they had prepared for the plaintiff’s use nor one they knew he was accustomed to use in doing their work.

It is probably true that the defendant did not put the timbers on the side of the elevator well to enable their employees to enter the building from the loading platform, but it does not follow that they are necessarily free from fault, for the plaintiff’s evidence tends to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Morrison v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
  2. Straw v. Pittsfield Shoe Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Rowe v. Ayer & Williams, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API