Haskell v. Manchester Street Railway
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for negligence in permitting a car used as a waiting place for passengers to be in a dangerous condition. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the September term, 1905, of the superior court by Peaslee, J. Subject to exception, a witness was permitted to testify that a, defect in a seat in the car, of which the plaintiff complained as. the cause of her injury, could have been remedied for two dollars.
1Opinion of the CourtBingham, J.
The amount of expenditure required to have remedied the defect from which the plaintiff received her injury-had some tendency to show whether the defendants were guilty of a want, of care in not making repairs before the accident. Taylor v. Railway, 48 N. H. 304, 316. The evidence was competent. Being competent for some purpose, the verdict cannot be disturbed, since it does not appear that it was offered for a purpose for which it was incompetent. Rogers v. Kenrick, 63 N. H. 335; Smith v. Morrill, 71 N. H. 409, 411; Reagan v. Railway, 72 N. H. 298. The presumption is, in the absence of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Mitchell v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894
- Lawrence v. TowleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- Rogers v. KenrickSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Smith v. MorrillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1902
- Reagan v. Manchester Street RailwaySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1903
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hussey v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1926
- Spilene v. Salmon Falls Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1920
- Connecticut River Power Co. v. DickinsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
- State v. KennardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906
- Hansen v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.