Legal Opinion

Aldrich v. Concord & Montreal Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1892PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Case, for injuries caused by a defective switch negligently maintained by the defendants. Verdict for the plaintiff.

1Opinion of the Court

Carpenter J.

The plaintiff was permitted to show that after the accident the defendants took out the switch by which, as he claimed, the derailment was caused, and put in another of a different kind. The evidence was received on the question whether the old switch was reasonably safe, and, it must be presumed, was considered by the jury.

Evidence of this character has heretofore been admitted in this state without objection. In actions upon the statute of highways, proof that by direction of the selectmen the defects or obstructions complained of were cured or removed shortly after the accident…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Columbia & Puget Sound Railroad v. HawthorneSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Morse v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
  3. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. HennesseyTexas Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Corcoran v. . Village of PeekskillNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  5. Hodges v. PercivalIllinois Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Cyr v. J.I. Case Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
  2. City of Wynnewood v. CoxSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  3. Lydston v. Rockingham County Light & Tower Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
  4. Reynolds v. Maine Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
  5. Dow v. WeareSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1895

6 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