Legal Opinion

Harmon v. Richardson

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 1, 1936PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

The defendant does not contend that he owed the decedent no duty to exercise due care for her safety nor does he contend that there is no evidence in the record from which his failure in that respect could be found. Neither does he contend that the decedent’s contributory negligence is conclusively established. His sole contention, as expressed in his brief, is that even “if the defendant was negligent, there was no evidence from which the jury could find that the negligence was causal.”

The defendant summarizes his argument in support of this position as follows: “The primary cause of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Vidal v. ErrolSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
  2. Boucher v. LarochelleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
  3. Ingerson v. Grand Trunk RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919
  4. Cozzi v. HooksettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
  5. Russell v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Naquin v. Marquette Casualty CompanySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1963
  2. Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Railroad CompanySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1962
  3. Pullins v. Fentress County General Hospital & All-American Exterminating Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Wilson v. Manchester Savings BankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1948
  5. Hill v. GaertnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API