Fisher v. Boston & M. R. R.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1909 |
| Citation | 72 A. 212,75 N.H. 184 |
| Parties | FISHER v. BOSTON & M. R. R. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Merrimack County; Wallace, Chief Judge.
Action by Esther P. Fisher against the Boston & Maine Railroad. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.
Case for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the April term, 1908, of the superior court, on the defendants' exceptions to the denial of their motion for the direction of a verdict in their favor and to the admission of evidence. The plaintiff's evidence tended to prove the following facts: In March, 1907, and for some years prior thereto, the defendants maintained for the use of passengers at Franklin Junction a station and adjacent platform, located between the tracks of the Concord Division and those of the Tilton branch. The platform on the north of the station extended 52 feet, and was 17 feet and 10 inches wide. For a distance of 7 feet and 8 inches next to the tracks of the Concord Division the platform was about 19 inches higher than the remaining portion next to the tracks of the Tilton branch, and two steps running the whole length of the platform connected the two levels. On the morning of March 19th the plaintiff, who was 63 years old, alighted from a train which arrived at Franklin Junction over the Concord Division, and stopped opposite the northern part of the station. There were about 30 persons upon the platform at the time. In the midst of a group of passengers the plaintiff started to walk diagonally across the platform to the Tilton train. Her view of the platform was somewhat obstructed by those about her. She neither looked for nor saw the steps, and was not aware of their presence. As she moved along the platform, the plaintiff turned to look for her husband, who had remained longer upon the train and was following behind her, and, as she took the next step, she fell down the steps of the platform, and received the injuries for which she sought to recover. She was not crowded nor interfered with by others. There was considerable travel across the platform. During a period of a year and a half about a dozen persons stepped from one level of the platform to the other without noticing that there were any steps there, but none of these cases resulted in a fall. Evidence of what other persons did and the result of their action was admitted, subject to the defendants' exception.
Dudley & Lowe, for pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenney v. Len
...Co., 81 N. H. 257, 124 A. 792, evidence tending to show the existence of the duty was found lacking; while in others, such as Fisher v. Railroad, 75 N. H. 184. 72 A. 212, Blaisdell v. Paper Co., 75 N. H. 497, 77 A. 485, 139 Am. St. Rep. 735, Bassett v. Dodge, 77 N. H. 602, 93 A. 967, True v......
-
Paine v. Hampton Beach Imp. Co.
...short, the plaintiff complained not of a defective step, but of a deceptive and unexpected difference in levels. See Fisher v. Boston & M. R. R., 75 N.H. 184, 72 A. 212. This was evidence of a danger, Touhy v. Owl Drug Co., 6 Cal.App.2d 64, 44 P.2d 405, which the jury was competent to under......
-
Menard v. Cashman .
...was in suitable condition. Sprague v. Bristol, 63 N.H. 430; Gould v. Hutchins, 73 N.H. 69, 58 A. 1046. See, also, Fisher v. Boston & M. R. R., 75 N.H. 184, 186, 72 A. 212. The defendant's contention that no valid exception was taken to the admission of the above-mentioned testimony need not......
-
Lovett v. Manchester St. Ry.
...was conclusive if there was evidence to support it. Bailey, etc., Co. v. Railroad, 78 N. H. 94, 95, 97, 97 A. 555; Fisher v. Railroad, 75 N. H. 184, 185, 72 A. 212; Dow v. Weare, 68 N. H. 345, 346, 44 A. 489; Cook v. New Durham, 64 N. H. 419, 420, 13 A. 650; Griffin v. Auburn, 58 N. H. 121,......