Bourassa v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Cask, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from tbe December term, 1908, of the superior court by Pike, J., on the defendants’ exceptions to the admission of evidence, to certain instructions to the jury, and to the denial of their motions for a nonsuit and the direction of a verdict in their favor.
1Opinion of the CourtPabsons, C. J.
In support of their motion for a verdict, the defendants do not question the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize a finding of their fault as cause for the injury. The claim is that the plaintiff fails for lack of proof of his care. He was walking upon a branch railroad track, and proceeded for a distance of 220 feet without looking backward to see if a train was approaching, and did not observe the shifting engine which came up behind him until it was too late for him to escape injury. The evidence upon which the plaintiff contends care may be found is, that the portion of the track upon…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Rober v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Richard v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
- Smith v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935
- Bunten v. DavisSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Dolan v. O'RourkeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.