Lydston v. Rockingham County Light & Tower Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
There was no insulator on the running cable at the time of the accident, but one had been put on before the trial. A view was had, subject to the defendant’s exception. The jury were instructed that changes at the pole were irrelevant and should not be regarded by them.
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
Travelers upon public highways have the right to do all acts reasonably incident to “ a viatic use of the way.” “ There may be a difficulty in maintaining as law the proposition that a sidewalk, so situated as to be naturally and inevitably used for the hygienic purpose of a reasonable frolic of children on their way home from school, cannot be so used without being transformed from a way into a playground, or that by the gambols of young animals on their way to pasture their use of the road as a way is abandoned.” Varney v. Manchester, 58 N. H. 430, 434. As to such acts, and as to the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Boucher v. LarochelleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
- Aldrich v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
- Tabor v. JuddSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
- Varney v. ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1878
- Fairfield v. AmherstSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1876
3Cited by14 opinions
- Conner v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1947
- Burnham v. StillingsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911
- Moy Said Ching v. TillinghastCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1927
- Kansas, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. DillonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.