Copeland v. Exeter, Hampton & Amesbury Street Railway Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the January term, 1914, of tbe superior court by Branch, J., on the defendants’ exceptions to the denial of motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict. July 31, 1913, the plaintiff’s ward, a boy two years and nine months old, was struck and injured by the defendants’ electric car which was passing the plaintiff’s premises on a trip from Smith-town to Hampton.
Read the full summary
Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the January term, 1914, of tbe superior court by Branch, J., on the defendants’ exceptions to the denial of motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict. July 31, 1913, the plaintiff’s ward, a boy two years and nine months old, was struck and injured by the defendants’ electric car which was passing the plaintiff’s premises on a trip from Smith-town to Hampton. The evidence tended to prove that the accident happened at what is known as the lower driveway, which is about 130 feet from the plaintiff’s house and…
1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.
The jury were instructed, without exception, that there was no evidénce of negligence on the part of the defendants except as regarded the conduct of the motorman. The plaintiff’s ward, being too young to exercise care for his own safety, cannot be guilty of contributory negligence. Carney v. Railway, 72 N. H. 364. Therefore, the exceptions to the denial of the defendants’ motions for a nonsuit and for the direction of a verdict in their favor present the sole question, whether in the whole case there is any substantial evidence tending to prove that the motorman was negligent at the time of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Carney v. Concord Street RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Burnham v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897