Legal Opinion · Dissent

Martel v. Manchester Police Department

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided October 17, 1977No. 7722Published

1Dissent

Grimes and Douglas, JJ.,

dissenting: In our view, this case takes an overly restrictive position in reading the notice requirements of RSA ch. 281. “We are here concerned with the construction of remedial legislation in the light of its recognized purpose to afford to the employee ‘a certain and sure remedy applicable to all cases of injury not due to his wilful misconduct.’ ” Bolduc v. Company, 97 N.H. 360, 365, 89 A.2d 538, 541 (1952). The Manchester Police Department was given notice within the year. The only alleged defect is that it was not in writing. The trial court found no prejudice…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Levesque v. Bronze Craft Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1962
  2. Bolduc v. SOMERSWORTH SHOE COMPANY, INC.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API