Bissonnette v. Cormier
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Citation | 100 N.H. 197,122 A.2d 257 |
| Parties | William J. BISSONNETTE, d/b/a Bissonnette Sand & Gravel Co. v. Ralph H. CORMIER, d/b/a Manchester-Portsmouth-Dover Express Co. Edward McGUIGAN v. Ralph H. CORMIER, d/b/a Manchester-Portsmouth-Dover Express Co. Edward McGUIGAN v. Armand MESSIER. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Craig & Craig, Manchester, William H. Craig, Jr., Manchester, orally, for plaintiff.
Devine & Millimet, Manchester, Joseph A. Millimet, Manchester, orally, for defendant Messier.
The Court instructed the jury that there was no evidence that the defendant did not stop at the stop sign. The only direct testimony in the record was that the defendant did stop at the stop sign. The plaintiff claims that there is other evidence from which it could be found that he did not stop because the defendant's truck was 'in third speed' and because of the plaintiff's testimony that 'there is nothing in the road one second and the next second this guy is right in front of the road.' See Abbott v. Hayes, 92 N.H. 126, 128, 26 A.2d 842. No evidence was introduced to explain the significance of third speed in the defendant's truck and neither that fact nor the plaintiff's testimony warranted a finding that no stop was made at the stop sign. It is entirely consistent with the evidence viewing it most favorably to the plaintiff, French v. York, 99 N.H. 90, 105 A.2d 749, that the negligence of the defendant occurred, if at all, after the stop was made at the stop sign. This matter was adequately taken care of by the Court in its instructions. While the jury were entitled to disbelieve the defendant's testimony even though it was uncontradicted, the disbelief was not affirmative proof in favor of the plaintiff. Clairmont v. Cilley, 85 N.H. 1, 153 A. 465. 'Disbelief in testimony concerning particular facts does not convert that testimony into affirmative proof of contrary facts.' Coleman v. Stacy, 91 N.H. 60, 62, 13 A.2d 466, 467; Stuart v. D. N. Kelley & Son, Inc., 331 Mass. 76, 117 N.E.2d 160. The plaintiff produced no evidence that the defendant failed to stop at the stop sign and the Court's instruction was therefore proper.
The Court instructed the jury that they were to decide if the defendant was negligent in the manner in which he operated his truck at the intersection after stopping at the stop sign. This did not eliminate the stop sign as a circumstance for the jury to consider. The jury was still called upon to determine whether the defendant was negligent after he had left the stop sign. Legere v. Buinicky, 93 N.H. 71, 35 A.2d 508. It was agreed at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dworkis v. Dworkis
...76; Cruzan v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 227 Mass. 594, 116 N.E. 879; Clairmont v. Cilley, 85 N.H. 1, 153 A. 465; Bissonnette v. Cormier, 100 N.H. 197, 122 A.2d 257. The chancellor found an absence of need on the part of defendant for alimony, saying in the 'The defendant has ample fina......
-
Carrigan v. Roman Catholic Bishop
...fall. If this testimony were disbelieved, such disbelief would not warrant an affirmative finding to the contrary. Bissonnette v. Cormier, 100 N.H. 197, 199, 122 A.2d 257. If the plaintiff correctly argues that he should be entitled to damages for any loss of Mrs. Carrigan's 'right to the c......
-
Wadsworth v. Russell
...to stop at the stop sign. He maintains there was no evidence in the record on which the jury could have so found. Bissonnette v. Cormier, 100 N.H. 197, 122 A.2d 257. The record fails to show that this defendant brought the lack of evidence complained of to the attention of the Trial Court b......
-
Carter v. Bergeron
...Concord does not warrant a finding that Bergeron exercised any control over Manninen's speed beyond that point. Bissonnette v. Cormier, 100 N.H. 197, 199, 122 A.2d 257. Manninen himself however contradicted the testimony which he gave in this respect. He acknowledged that Bergeron 'was also......