Wilder v. Concord
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence. Transferred from the October term, 1902, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. Upon the opening statement made by counsel for the plaintiff a nonsuit was ordered, subject to exception.
Read the full summary
Case, for negligence. Transferred from the October term, 1902, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. Upon the opening statement made by counsel for the plaintiff a nonsuit was ordered, subject to exception. The material facts stated were as follows: At about half past six in the evening of October 16, 1901, the plaintiff while walking along a sidewalk on Spring street, a legal highway in Concord, without fault on her part, fell into an open trench dug across the sidewalk, and was injured. In Spring street there is a public sewer with which the house of Frank Lassond is connected by a…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
Although the action is stated in the record to be “ case for negligence,” no claim has been made that recovery could be had except under the statute establishing the liability of towns to travelers injured through the unsuitable condition of the highway. Laws 1893, <?. 59. The only question considered, therefore, has been whether the facts stated bring the case within the statute.
The duty imposed upon towns by chapter 75, Public Statutes, enforceable by indictment as therein provided, to keep all highways within their limits suitable for the travel thereon, was not affected by the legislation…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ford v. Town of BraintreeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
3Cited by10 opinions
- Salt Lake City v. SchubachUtah Supreme Court · 1945
- Cozzi v. HooksettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
- Parker v. New BostonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918
- Hickey v. BerlinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1915
- Miner v. HopkintonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.