Schwotzer v. Sherwood

There was abundant evidence of the defendant’s negligence. The mere fact that Urick, in the emergency, turned his car to the left did not preclude recovery. Gale v. Lisbon, 52 N. H. 174, 180, 181. See also Reed v. Company, 84 N. H. 156, 159. He had a right to a reasonable use of the road, and in turning to the left he was not attempting to pass the defendant’s car. Having rightfully done what he did, he was not hable merely because he helped to create a situation dangerous to others as well as himself.

Nor were the plaintiffs necessarily at fault for failing to jump from the car. The car was…