Legal Opinion

McLeod v. Caprarello

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 1, 1949No. 3735Published

1Opinion of the CourtBlandin, J.

The test to determine the worth of the plaintiff’s exceptions to the Court’s instructions is to inquire if they stated the law correctly and if it is “reasonably certain the jury understood them.” Davis v. State, 94 N. H. 321, 323, and cases cited. In our opimon the charge, which must be read as a whole (Theobald v. Shepard, 75 N. H. 52, 57; Gaudette v. McLaughlin, 88 N. H. 368, 373) meets this test. Howe v. Jameson, 91 N. H. 55, 58. After proper instruc tions that the plaintiff’s own negligence would bar her recovery, even though the defendant were negligent, the jury were twice correctly…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Frost v. StevensSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
  2. Gaudette v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
  3. Manning v. Leavitt Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1939
  4. Clark v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934
  5. Davis v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1947

7 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