Watkins v. Hustis
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence under the federal employers’ liability act. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a fireman on a train running from Concord, New Hampshire, to Worcester, Massachusetts, fell or was thrown from the train at a point between Ayer and Harvard, Massachusetts, and claims to recover for the injuries so received. The defendants’ motion made at the close of the evidence that a verdict be directed for them was denied subject to exception.
Read the full summary
Case, for negligence under the federal employers’ liability act. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a fireman on a train running from Concord, New Hampshire, to Worcester, Massachusetts, fell or was thrown from the train at a point between Ayer and Harvard, Massachusetts, and claims to recover for the injuries so received. The defendants’ motion made at the close of the evidence that a verdict be directed for them was denied subject to exception. The evidence relevant to the exception appears in the opinion. Transferred by Sawyer, J., from the October term, 1918, of…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The federal legislation under which this suit is brought does not abrogate or qualify the common law rule that in all actions for negligence the plaintiff has the burden of establishing the defendants’ negligence and his resulting injury. Wilson v. Railway, 78 N. H. 142. Proof of negligence is not sufficient unless i the evidence discloses an open and visible connection between the injury and the negligence charged as a reasonable and probable result therefrom. The plaintiff must recover upon proof, not upon conjecture or surmise. Ingerson v. Railway, ante, 154; City Bowling Alleys v. Berlin,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Gahagan v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1900
- Deschenes v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897
- Reynolds v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1904
- Dame v. Laconia Car Co. WorksSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- City Bowling Alleys v. BerlinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. HammondCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- Hunkins v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
- Dade v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1943
- Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. HammondCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926