Legal Opinion
Dickey v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided December 5, 1899PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Case, for' negligence. Pacts agreed. The plaintiff’s sled, while “ set ” upon a Mghway crossing of the defendants’ railroad in consequence of the crossing being bare of snow, was run into by one of the defendants’ trains and injured. If it was the duty of the defendants to keep the crossing covered with snow, the plaintiff is to have judgment.
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
It was the duty of the defendants to keep the highway crossing in a -reasonably safe and convenient condition for public use. P. S., c. 159, s. 1; Concord v. Railroad, 69 N. H. 87. Whether it should have been covered with snow to put it into such condition is a question of fact. Boothby v. Railway, 66 N. H. 342.
Case discharged.
All concurred.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Boothby v. Grand Trunk RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1890
- Concord v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Laconia v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925
- Pierce v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928