Tuttle v. Farmington
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for personal injuries from a defective highway. The defect was shown in the highway, and the manner of the plaintiff’s driving at the time of the injury. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the horse was frightened and unmanageable, or was unmanageable from having the bits out of his mouth when near and at the defective place.
Read the full summary
Case, for personal injuries from a defective highway. The defect was shown in the highway, and the manner of the plaintiff’s driving at the time of the injury. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the horse was frightened and unmanageable, or was unmanageable from having the bits out of his mouth when near and at the defective place. The court declined to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendants, that, if the plaintiff was injured by the defect while the horse was frightened, the town was not liable. The court charged the jury that the plaintiff was bound to use ordinary care…
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
A traveller on a highway must exercise ordinary care and prudence in the selection of a reasonably safe horse, wagonand harness. Clark v. Barrington, 41 N. H. 44; Tucker v. Henniker, id., 317. These'cases also decide, that a traveller, having made the required selection, is bound to exercise only ordinary care and prudence in their management.
Whether the plaintiff in this case made a suitable selection of a horse, wagon, and harness, and whether he managed them with due care and prudence, were questions for the jury. Stark v. Lancaster, 57 N. H. 88; Palmer v. Portsmouth, 43 N. H. 265. The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Seeton v. DunbartonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Demers v. FlackSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
- Ayers v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894