Cappuchi v. Branch
| Decision Date | 01 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5847,5847 |
| Parties | Christos CAPPUCHI, ppa Diana Cappuchi v. Barbara BRANCH. Diana CAPPUCHI v. Barbara BRANCH. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Wyman, Bean & Tefft, Manchester (Stanton E. Tefft, Manchester, orally), for plaintiffs.
Wadleigh, Starr, Peters, Dunn & Kohls and William H. Kelley, Manchester, for defendant.
These actions are brought to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by Christos Cappuchi and consequential damages suffered by his mother as a result of an after-school prank. On August 14, 1965 the defendant, Barbara Branch, age 16, operating her mother's Volkswagen automobile, came to a stop near 'Dutch's' restaurant on Nutfield Lane, a narrow street or alley just east of Elm Street in Manchester. Christos, age 13, saw the automobile arrive and accompanied by another boy, Paul Carter, left Dutch's and went to the rear of the automobile. Christos positioned himself at the right rear bumper and Paul went to the lefthand side. Although the motor was running and Barbara was in the driver's seat, Christos cupped his hands under the bumper guard preparatory to attempting to lift the rear of the vehicle from the ground, the other boy doing likewise on the lefthand side. Barbara was aware of what the boys proposed to do and after discharging a passenger moved the car forward. Paul released his hold, but Christos continued to hold on, running behind the vehicle for some fifty to sixty feet until it came to a stop. When it did, Christos brought up against the rear of the car, and a projection on a ski rack beneath the rear window pierced his eyeball, resulting in the loss of his right eye.
Trial was by a jury with a view of the scene. At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence the defendant's motions for nonsuits were granted subject to plaintiffs' exceptions. The cases were reserved and transferred by the Presiding Justice (Bownes, J.).
The motions for nonsuits were granted on the ground that the plaintiff Christos was negligent as a matter of law, and because the evidence did not warrant a finding that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
The plaintiff Christos was 13 years of age, and had completed the eighth grade in school. His conduct was to be judged by standards applicable to a child of his age, experience, and state of mental development. Charbonneau v. MacRury, 84 N.H. 501, 153 A. 457 (1931). Cf. Daniels v. Evans, 107 N.H. 407, 224 A.2d 63 (1966). He was not injured in the process of lifting the defendant's automobile, but rather as a result of his failure to release his hold on the bumper guard when the automobile was moved forward. He testified that he had participated with other teenagers in similar vehicle-lifting incidents 'quite a few times' on previous occasions, over a period of several months. He acknowledged that at least one of these prior occasions had involved the front of the jsame automobile at the same place, and then occupied by the defendant; and that she had then directed him to 'cut it out.' While he conceded that on August 14, 1965 he realized that he had no permission to lift the automobile, he testified that he considered that Barbara would be there for a while because she was talking to a boy on the sidewalk by the car door;...
To continue reading
Request your trial