Cartier v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1942 |
| Citation | 29 A.2d 423 |
| Parties | CARTIER v. F. M. HOYT SHOE CORPORATION (two cases). |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Connor, Judge.
Action for personal injuries by Catharine Cartier, and derivative action by William J. Cartier, her husband, against F. M. Hoyt Shoe Corporation. On transfer of defendant's exceptions to motions for nonsuits and directed verdicts.
Exceptions overruled.
Action, for negligent maintenance of a stairway. Catharine, herein called the plaintiff, fell as she stepped off the floor from which the stairway led down, William is her husband and his action is derivative from hers.
A jury trial resulted in a disagreement. The defendant's exceptions to motions for nonsuits and directed verdicts have been transferred by Connor, J. Evidence of other facts appears in the opinion.
Warren, Wilson, McLaughlin & Wiggin and J. Walker Wiggin, all of Manchester, for plaintiffs.
Devine & Tobin and John E. Tobin, all of Manchester, for defendant.
The evidence warranted a finding that the tread at the edge of the floor from which the plaintiff stepped to go down the stairway was so worn as to make its condition one of negligent maintenance. She testified: . While some wear of stair treads is to be expected and creates no demand for repair, the point at which the wear has become so great as to make the stairs unduly hazardous is one of fact, and the evidence quoted tended to show that the danger point had been passed.
If the evidence shows no cause of the fall other than the defect, it is sufficient. Harmon v. Richardson, 88 N.H. 312, 314, 188 A. 468. And if the fall might be found due to failure to appreciate and observe the distance from the door through which the plaintiff passed to the edge of the floor at the top of the stairs, it was for the jury to weigh the probabilities between the causes claimed. Boucher v. Larochelle, 74 N.H. 433, 68 A. 870, 15 L.R.A., N.S., 416.
The evidence fails to compel a conclusion of the plaintiff's fault. Due care did not necessarily require her to anticipate an unsafe condition at the edge of the floor where she stepped down on the stairway, and thus to look at it to see if it was safe. It was in evidence that she was familiar with the premises and had used the stairway in going up to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holsman v. Darling State St. Corp.
...opinion, and the rule there laid down in the majority opinion is not in accord with the weight of authority. In Cartier v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Corp., 92 N.H. 263, 29 A.2d 423, the court holds that where the evidence shows that a stair tread was worn and slippery the question as to whether the w......
-
Lynch v. L. B. Sprague Inc.
... ... Cartier v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Corp., 92 N.H. 263, 29 A.2d 423. The question of her ... ...
-
Menard v. Cashman.
...demonstrate lack of care on her part, and the motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict were rightly denied. Cartier v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Corporation, 92 N.H. 263, 29 A.2d 423. The defendant's seventh and eighth requests for instructions related to the issue of the plaintiff's due care, co......
-
Barrett v. Foster Grant Co., Civ. A. No. 2944.
...conditions of safety" to business invitees. Butler v. King, 99 N.H. 150, 152, 106 A.2d 385 (1954). In Cartier v. Hoyt Shoe Corp., 92 N.H. 263, 265, 29 A.2d 423, 424, (1942), the Court held that the defendant store owner owed the plaintiff invitee a duty to maintain reasonable conditions of ......