Boston & Maine Railroad v. Sargent
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The counsel for the Rolfes, in his argument to the jury, made no claim that the Boston & Maine Railroad was negligent in fact. The following extracts from the argument of Sargent’s counsel have reference to the railroad’s liability: “We find here that there is an allegation of carelessness. ...
Read the full summary
The counsel for the Rolfes, in his argument to the jury, made no claim that the Boston & Maine Railroad was negligent in fact. The following extracts from the argument of Sargent’s counsel have reference to the railroad’s liability: “We find here that there is an allegation of carelessness. ... I don’t know why, under the circumstances, the railroad was brought in here. . . . I have inquired in my own mind whether it was simply to get the' railroad in here as a corporation, so as to excite some sort of sympathy on your part in -behalf of the plaintiffs. I trust that that has not been their…
1Opinion of the CourtPike, J.
In tins case, as in all similar cases, the plaintiffs must show that the injuries complained of were not caused by their ovni negligence, but were caused by that of the defendant. They must prove that by the exercise of ordinary care they could not, and the defendant could, have prevented the accident. The sole effect of the judgment in the Rolfes’ suit “ is to relieve the parties from the burden of proving or disproving the facts therein litigated or determined. Upon those facts both parties are concluded by the judgment.” Gregg v. Belting Co., 69 N. H. 247, 249. It was therein determined…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lord v. BigelowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. CorronSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Snyder v. MarkenWashington Supreme Court · 1921
- Grand Rapids & Indiana Railway Co. v. L. Starks Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Woodbury v. FergusonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911