Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Resnik

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided March 1, 1932PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.

In support of her motion for a nonsuit the defendant seeks to invoke the rule which prevails in Massachusetts that “The relation of landlord and tenant imposed on the defendant no duty to remove from the steps ice naturally accumulating thereon.” Bell v. Siegel, 242 Mass. 380; Woods v. Company, 134 Mass. 357. This rule has been severely criticized, and competent authorities have declared that it cannot be justified upon grounds of principle. Reardon v. Shimelman, 102 Conn. 383, 387; United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Paine, 26 Fed. Rep. (2d) 594. Its adoption here would involve a limitation of or…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Reardon v. ShimelmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  2. Woods v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  3. Erickson v. BuckleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  4. Watkins v. GoodallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
  5. Nash v. WebberMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lapidus v. HahnAppellate Court of Illinois · 1983
  2. McLain v. HaleyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Schwab v. Allou CorporationNebraska Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Durkin v. LewitzAppellate Court of Illinois · 1955
  5. Oswald v. JerajOhio Supreme Court · 1946

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

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

Powered by the Exa API