Laronde v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
C~sE, for negligently running against and killing the plaintiff's horse. Trial by jury. The defendants' motions, made at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, for orders directing a nonsuit and a verdict in their favor, were denied subject to exception.
Read the full summary
C~sE, for negligently running against and killing the plaintiff's horse. Trial by jury. The defendants' motions, made at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, for orders directing a nonsuit and a verdict in their favor, were denied subject to exception. The ease was then taken from the jury with an agreement that, if there was sufficient evidence to warrant its submission to the jury, the plaintiff should have judgment for ~15O and costs; if not, the defendants should have judgment. Transferred from the October term, 1904, of the superior court by Wallace, C. J. The plaintiff's evidence…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
The negligence with which the plaintiff charges the defendants is the failure of their motorman seasonably to discover the perilous position of 'the horse, and stop the car. It cannot be doubted that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of such negligence. It was the duty of the motorman to keep watch of the track ahead of his car to avoid collisions with objects that might be upon the track, whether rightfully or wrongfully. The law imposed the duty upon him for the safety of persons both upon the highway and upon the car. Indeed, his own safety depended upon its faithful…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mitchell v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Nashua Iron & Steel Co. v. Worcester & Nashua RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
- Carney v. Concord Street RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
- Felch v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1890
- Edgerly v. Union Street RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.