Legal Opinion

Putnam v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 7, 1939No. 3033PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, C. J.

The verdict of $4,500 in the jury trial included no allowance for loss of consortium. The case states that it was for expenses on account of the injuries to the decedent’s wife, for his personal injuries, and for his property damage. The point is taken that the jury’s allowance for each of these elements cannot now be ascertained. Special verdicts therefor, although sought, were not required. While if directed and returned, they would be conclusive, yet without them, it is not impossible to find what the separate allowances which went to make up the single verdict were. The issue is one to be…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sauriolle v. O'GormanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
  2. American Motorists Insurance v. KopkaSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
  3. Gibbs v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1934

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  2. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. HartSupreme Court of Florida · 1943
  3. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  4. Bernat v. SockeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  5. Malone v. Costa, Et Vir.Supreme Court of Florida · 1942

1 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