Legal Opinion

Gallagher v. Manchester Street Railway

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided December 5, 1899PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPike, J.

Conceding the truth of the plaintiff’s evidence (Bullard v. Railroad, 64 N. H. 27, 30), the jury could properly find that he was in the exercise of ordinary care when he attempted to cross the tracks. But even if they could not, the plaintiff would not be prevented from recovering. “ If due care on the part of either at the time of the injury would prevent it, the antecedent negligence of one or both parties is immaterial, except it may be as one of the circumstances by which the requisite measure of care is to be determined. . . . To warrant a recovery, the plaintiff must establish . . .…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Bullard v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886
  2. Nashua Iron & Steel Co. v. Worcester & Nashua RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
  3. Folsom v. Concord & Montreal RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1896
  4. Felch v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1890
  5. Edgerly v. Union Street RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1892

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Locke v. Puget Sound International Railway & Power Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Marchal v. Indianapolis Street Railway Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1901
  3. Lung v. Washington Water Power Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Laronde v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API