Bernardi Greater Shows, Inc. v. Boston & M. R. R.
Decision Date | 07 February 1933 |
Citation | 165 A. 124 |
Parties | BERNARDI GREATER SHOWS, Inc. v. BOSTON & M. R. R. KIMBALL v. SAME. BITTNER v. SAME. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Strafford County; Scammon, Judge.
Separate actions on the case for negligence by Bernardi Greater Shows, Incorporated, by John S. Kimball, administrator of the estate of George Monroe, and by Edward Bittner, against the Boston & Maine Railroad. Transferred in advance of trial for decision on rights of parties under special agreement made by Bernardi Greater Shows, Incorporated, and Boston & Maine Railroad concerning the transportation of property and of persons connected with the Bernardi Greater Shows, Incorporated.
Case discharged.
Three actions on the case for negligence, transferred by Scammon, J., in advance of trial for a decision upon the question of law hereinafter stated.
The nature of the first action is sufficiently indicated by the following portion of the declaration:
The declaration then described the damage to the property of the plaintiff, and contained an allegation that this damage was increased by subsequent negligent handling of the same by the defendant's agents. A copy of the contract under which the shipment was made was attached to the declaration, the essential provisions of which are hereinafter stated.
In the second action the plaintiffs intestate, George Monroe, is alleged to have been "an employee of David B. Stock, the owner of an independent amusement device attached subject to and operating under the booking, routing, rules and regulations of the Bernardi Greater Shows," who lost his life as a result of the wreck described in the declaration above quoted.
The plaintiff in the third action was an employee of the Bernardi Greater Shows who received personal injuries as a result of the same wreck.
The important provisions of the contract are as follows:
"First: The railroad will furnish the use of its railroad and necessary sidings, the necessary conductors, engineers and other trainmen, and sufficient motive power and will perform the switching and placing of cars for loading and unloading at its stations hereinafter named and transport the show, show material, show animals, apparatus and paraphernalia, and persons in charge thereof, employees and performers, and their personal baggage in cars loaded and unloaded by and at the expense and risk of the show, upon the dates and to make the runs following, to wit:
Leave
For
About 8:00 A. M.
Lakeport, N. H.
Gloucester, Mass.
Sunday, July 22nd, 1928
Gloucester, Mass.
Springfield, Mass.
Sunday, July 29th, 1928
Springfield, Mass.
Bellow Falls, Vt.
Sunday. Aug. 5th, 1928
and deliver loaded cars to the Rutland Railroad.
The sixth clause, after specifying the rates to be paid by the plaintiff, concludes as follows:
"And the show does hereby acknowledge that it had the option of shipping its show, both persons and property at higher rates according to the tariffs, classifications and rules of the railroad and therefor receiving the security of the liability of the railroad as a common carrier, but has voluntarily decided to ship the same under this contract at the reduced rates above named."
No special plea having been filed by the defendant, and the case being in order for trial upon the general issue, the presiding justice made the following order: "The question as to whether or not the within agreement, a copy of which is attached to the amended declarations in each action, is a bar to the maintenance of all or any of the foregoing actions is reserved and transferred as an important question of law in advance of trial."
Other facts appear in the opinion.
Cooper & Hall, of Rochester, Robert W. Upton and Joseph C. Donovan, both of Concord, and F. Clyde Keefe, of Dover, for plaintiffs.
Hughes & Burns, of Dover, and Conrad E. Snow, of Rochester, for defendant.
1. It is plain that the provisions of the contract here involved furnish no answer to some of the allegations in the declarations of the plaintiffs, and that the broad question reserved by the superior court must therefore be answered in the negative. It is alleged that the defendant undertook to keep the cars of the show company in a fit and safe state of repair through its regular and customary system of inspection and repair and made a charge against the show company for this service, but that the inspection was negligently performed and that this negligence contributed to cause the accident. Although the show company undertook in the fourth clause of the contract that "each car and the contents thereof shall be of a character and in order suitable for such movement," the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chicago & NW Ry. Co. v. Davenport
...of persons and the carriage of property is well illustrated by the decisions of the New Hampshire Court in Bernardi Greater Shows v. Boston & M. R. R. Co., 86 N.H. 146, 165 A. 124; second appeal 89 N.H. 490, 1 A.2d 360. The doctrine of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 ......
-
Akerly v. Railway Exp. Agency
...rights of the parties are governed by federal law. Colby v. American Express Co., 77 N.H. 548, 94 A. 198; Bernardi Greater Shows v. Boston & M. Railroad, 86 N.H. 146, 165 A. 124; Cincinnati New Orleans & Tex. Pac. Ry. v. Rankin, 241 U.S. 319, 36 S.Ct. 555, 60 L.Ed. 1022; Chicago & N. W. Ry.......
-
Sasinowski v. Boston & MRR
...in the state of New Hampshire, it is governed by the law of that state; and relies on the case of Bernardi Greater Shows, Inc., v. Boston & Maine R. R., 86 N. H. 146, 165 A. 124, in which the New Hampshire Supreme Court has held under its law, that not only was the railroad liable to the Be......
-
Ensco, Inc. v. Weicker Transfer and Storage Co., s. 80-1889
... ... Indeed, the record shows that Weicker did not even know in advance the location of the test sites ... 385, 890-93, 44 L.Ed. 560 (1900); Sasinowski v. Boston & M.R.R., 74 F.2d 628, 631 (1st Cir. 1935). The latter case held that the ... See also Bernardi Greater Shows, Inc. v. Boston & M.R.R., 89 N.H. 490, 1 A.2d 360, 362-63 ... ...