Grossbard v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Cáse, to recover for injuries in a collision upon a highway grade crossing of defendants’ road. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Cáse, to recover for injuries in a collision upon a highway grade crossing of defendants’ road. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. In argument, the plaintiff’s counsel said: “Now couldn’t Mr. Grossbard reasonably and safely rely upon that flagman being there? What would you do, or I do, under those very circumstances? I hope that I am a reasonably safe man and I suggest that to you, and I believe that you gentlemen are reasonable men. . . . Now, if there is the least iota of evidence of Mr. Grossbard’s negligence, I don’t see it. I am willing to suggest this to you; that if any of…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The defendants say that counsel told the jury that he was a reasonable man and as such could see no negligence in the plaintiff’s conduct. That is, they say counsel was expressing an opinion, was testifying, not arguing. Fellows v. Company, 76 N. H. 457.
But counsel did not say he was a reasonable man, but only that he hoped he was. Whether he was such and whether as such he could see negligence in the evidence, he left to the jury. The only definite statement was, “If there is the least iota of evidence of Mr. Grossbard’s negligence, I don’t see it.” The existence of negligence is a fact to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mitchell v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Kambour v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1913
- Rogers v. KenrickSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Lane v. Manchester MillsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
- Fellows v. Champion International Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1912
3Cited by2 opinions
- Martel v. White MillsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
- State v. KetchenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1921