Duteny v. Pennichuck Water Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.
1. The motion for a directed verdict was properly denied. One who creates or maintains a situation which involves an unreasonable risk of injury to others because of their expectable lawful action is properly regarded as negligent. Olney v. Railroad, 71 N. H. 427, 431. Since the defendant, for the accommodation of its meter, saw fit to maintain a hole in the floor of the plaintiff’s cellar, it was its duty to exercise reasonable care to protect persons lawfully in the cellar from the danger of falling into the hole. If for this purpose it chose to make use of a protective covering constructed…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Burke v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Olney v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- Reynolds v. Maine Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
- Dow v. MerrillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
- Rowan v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bridges v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
- Rowe v. Ayer & Williams, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
- Shea v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937