Fleming v. Martin
| Decision Date | 19 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-010,81-010 |
| Citation | 442 A.2d 584,122 N.H. 128 |
| Parties | Barry T. FLEMING v. John C. MARTIN et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Kahn, Brown & Bruno, Nashua (Kenneth M. Brown, Nashua, on the brief and orally), for plaintiff.
Hamblett & Kerrigan, P. A., Nashua (John P. Griffith, Nashua, on the brief and orally), for defendants.
On April 30, 1974, the plaintiff, Barry T. Fleming, went to the home of the defendants, John C. Martin and Joan Martin, to meet their son. As the plaintiff and the defendants' son watched motorcyclists who were racing on the defendants' property, one of the motorcycles struck the plaintiff from behind. The plaintiff brought an action in negligence against the defendants and, after a jury trial, he was awarded $65,000 in damages. During trial, the defendants sought a non-suit after the plaintiff's opening statement and a directed verdict after the plaintiff's case. After trial, they requested a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but all motions were denied by the Superior Court (Flynn, J.). The defendants appealed the trial court's rulings to this court.
Before trial, neither party objected to having the legal standard set forth in Quellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552, 364 A.2d 631 (1976) applied. In Quellette, this court abolished the distinctions between licensees and invitees and set forth a standard of reasonable care to be used in all cases in which a person is harmed while on another's property. Id. at 557, 364 A.2d at 634. When the trial court instructed the jury according to this standard, although the defendants objected to part of the charge, they did not object to the use of the Quellette standard. On appeal, however, the defendants claim that the trial court erred in applying Quellette because in Burns v. Bradley, 120 N.H. 542, 545, 419 A.2d 1069, 1071 (1980), this court stated that Quellette would apply only prospectively.
We need not address the issue of whether the Quellette standard should have been applied to this action when the injury claimed occurred two years before the Quellette decision, because the defendants did not make a timely objection to the application of Quellette. The standards set forth in Quellette became the law of the trial when the defendants failed to object to the trial court's instruction to the jury. Zielinski v. Cornwell, 100 N.H. 34, 39, 118 A.2d 734, 738 (1955); see Danvers Savings Bank v. Hammer, 122 N.H. ---, 440, A.2d 435, 437 (1982); Steel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jaroma
...covered in the defendant's brief. We will consider only those five questions, and deem the remainder waived. See Fleming v. Martin, 122 N.H. 128, 130, 442 A.2d 584, 585 (1982). The briefed questions of law, renumbered to reflect the order in which we consider them, are as "[ (1) ] Whether t......
-
State v. Harper
...will, therefore, be considered waived. Daboul v. Town of Hampton, 124 N.H. 307, 309, 471 A.2d 1148, 1149 (1983); Fleming v. Martin, 122 N.H. 128, 130, 442 A.2d 584, 585 (1982). I. Issue (1)--Attempted This court has not had occasion to deal with the precise question of whether conviction of......
-
Petrie-Clemons v. Butterfield
... ... At the outset, we note that in reviewing damage awards, we will consider the evidence "in the light most favorable to the prevailing party." Martin v. Phillips, 122 N.H. ---, ---, 440 A.2d 1124, 1126 (1982) (quoting M. W. Goodell Const. Co. v. Monadnock Skating Club, Inc., 121 N.H. 320, 323, 429 ... ...
-
State v. Bonalumi
...neither briefed nor argued and the other was waived during oral argument; therefore we need not consider them. Fleming v. Martin, 122 N.H. 128, 130, 442 A.2d 584, 585 (1982) (an issue raised in notice of appeal but not briefed need not be considered by this Affirmed. JOHNSON, J., did not si......