Colston v. Boston & M. R. R.
| Decision Date | 08 November 1910 |
| Citation | 99 A. 649,78 N.H. 284 |
| Parties | COLSTON v. BOSTON & M. R. R. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Chamberlin, Judge.
Action by Hattie A. Colston against the Boston & Maine Railroad. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Case and trespass for personal injuries. The plaintiff, a trespasser upon the defendants' tracks at West Lebanon, was struck and injured by the defendants' car. A notice complying with chapter 75, Laws 1899, forbidding trespass was posted by the defendants before and at the time of the plaintiff's injury, May 5, 1913. The plaintiff knew of the notice. Verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff excepted to the refusal to instruct the jury that, as the phrase "willful or gross negligence" is to be applied in this case, it means merely that the plaintiff must prove the defendants' brakeman on the car saw her in a place of danger, and that she apparently did not know the car was coming, and that he could then have prevented the injury by using ordinary care and to the charge as follows:
"The plaintiff excepts to charge that under the evidence gross or willful negligence means anything more than the omission of ordinary care to avoid injuring the plaintiff after Crowe [the defendants' employé in charge of the car] saw her. and that she did not know the car was coming."
Martin & Howe, of Concord, for plaintiff. Streeter, Demond, Woodworth & Sulloway, of Concord, for defendant.
PARSONS, C. J. "Section 1. If any person shall without right enter upon or remain in any right of way, tracks, yard, station ground, bridge, depot, or other building of any railroad, when notice has been posted forbidding such trespass, he may be fined not exceeding twenty dollars; and no right to enter or be upon any railroad track shall be implied from custom or user however long continued.
The application of the act to the plaintiff's cause of action is not disputed. Her only ground of recovery is that her injuries were "occasioned by the willful or gross negligence of the railroad or its employés" within the meaning of the Legislature. The only question discussed is as to the meaning of the words "willful or gross negligence."
The Question of the plaintiff's care was taken out of the case by the instruction that there was no evidence she was careless. The only question presented by the failure to give the requested instruction and the special exception to the charge is whether under certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowdler v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co.
...that "words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language." P.L. c. 2, § 2; Colston v. Railroad, 78 N. H. 284, 99 A. 649; Floyd v. Verrette, 79 N.H. 316, 108 A. 693. Some reason of compelling force would be necessary to justify a conclusion that t......
-
Carleton v. Boston & M. R. R.
...was to be held to the exercise of very great care. A new rule of conduct was set up, differing from the common law. Colston v. Railroad, 99 A. 649, 78 N. H. 284. An extremely high standard was established, but the criterion is still the exercise of care, and an absolute liability is not imp......
-
Public Service Co. v. State
...agree that if the words of the formula in RSA 83:4 are interpreted according to their common and approved usage (Colston v. Boston & M. R. R., 78 N.H. 284, 286, 99 A. 649) as requiring that the equity earnings be capitalized at the current regulatory rate of return, the formula has no econo......
-
Lee v. Chamberlain
...of gross negligence presents a question of fact for the jury." The authorities cited in support of this proposition are Colston v. Railroad, 78 N. H. 284, 285, 99 A. 649, and Boiley v. Railroad, 78 N. H. 564, 566, 103 A. 660. The first-named case was an action for personal injuries received......