Davis v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Cask, for personal injuries. Trial by jury. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence a nonsuit was ordered, and he excepted. The evidence showed that he was run over by an engine, October 18, 1897, while in the defendants’ station in Concord. He was not there on business with the defendants, but for his own convenience. Other facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The plaintiff must show in order to recover (1) that the defendants were negligent; (2) that their negligence was some part of the legal cause of his injury; and (3) that he was without fault at the time the accident happened. Legal negligence is the failure to perforin a duty the law imposes upon one person for the benefit of another: consequently, when there is no duty there can be no negligence.
Although the ownership of land imposes no duty upon the owner for the benefit of trespassers (Clark v. Manchester, 62 N. H. 577; Frost v. Railroad, 64 N. H. 220; Buch v. Company, 69 N. H. 257), it…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Mitchell v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Frost v. Eastern RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
- Nashua Iron & Steel Co. v. Worcester & Nashua RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
- Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897
- Felch v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Moseley v. Alabama Power Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1945
- Kelley v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Smith v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1935
- Minot v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Myers v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.