Quimby v. Woodbury
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Debt, on the statute (G. L., o. 115, s. 11), to recover double damages sustained by the plaintiff from being bitten by the defendant’s dog.
Read the full summary
Debt, on the statute (G. L., o. 115, s. 11), to recover double damages sustained by the plaintiff from being bitten by the defendant’s dog. It appeared that at the time of the injury the dog was in the plaintiff’s pasture barking by a hole in the wall, and the plaintiff went to drive it away; but as to what he did in his efforts to effect that purpose, and whether his conduct and treatment of the animal were proper and reasonably necessary to that end, or whether he brought the injury upon himself by his ill-treatment of the dog, and by want of due care to avoid the injury, the evidence was…
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
The principle of law which requires the exercise of reasonable care to avoid- doing injury to others, requires also the exercise of reasonable care to avoid being injured by the negligence of others, and as a general rule one cannot recover compensation for an injury occasioned by the mere negligence of another, which he might have avoided by the exercise of reasonable care. If the injury would not have happened to him but for his own want of ordinary care, he cannot legally charge to the negligence of the other party the consequences of his own carelessness. And this doctrine of contributory…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Whitaker v. WarrenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Craig v. GerrishSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bohan v. RitzoSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1996
- Colby v. LeeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1928
- Blais v. Town of GoffstownSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- LaBarre v. DaneaultSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1983
- Gagnon v. FrankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1927
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.