Grace v. Town of Belmont
| Decision Date | 01 February 1916 |
| Citation | 97 A. 221,78 N.H. 112 |
| Parties | GRACE v. TOWN OF BELMONT |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Belknap County; Sawyer, Judge.
Case for personal injuries by one Grace against the Town of Belmont. Trial by jury, and verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff was driving on the Merrimack Valley road in Belmont about one mile below Laconia, when her horse shied at an automobile, and drew the right wheels of her carriage onto the south side of the roadway, and into a ditch, throwing her out of the carriage and breaking her arm. The improvements upon this road in Belmont up to that time, which was in 1913, had been made by the town under the direction of the state. Transferred on exceptions. Judgment for defendants.
Frank M. Beckford and Charles B. Hibbard, both of Laconia, for plaintiff. Oscar L. Young, of Laconia, for defendants.
This case was transferred upon exceptions to evidence and to the charge of the court, and upon a motion for a directed virdict, and was briefed and argued solely on those issues. Afterwards the question was raised as to whether the action could be maintained by reason of section 0, chapter 54, of the Laws of 1903, and the parties have argued that issue before this court; it is therefore assumed that they desire that question decided, at least it would be useless to send the case back for a new trial if it is barred by the above statute, so whether it is thus barred is considered at this time.
Chapter 54, Laws of 1903, provided for a more systematic and extensive construction and improvement of highways by the state in the mountain region and other places than had before been attempted. Chapter 133, Laws of 1903, made provision for the appointment of highway engineers who were to procure and prepare maps, examine routes, and prepare plans for the future construction and improvement of highways by state aid or state control. And the Governor and council under said act were to prepare a bill for submission to the next general court, which should "provide fully end in detail for the inauguration of a system of state work and state expenditure in the future construction and repairs of local and state highways." In 1905, chapter 35 was passed, having for its object a more uniform system for the improvement of main highways throughout the state.
The Merrimack Valley road upon which the accident happened, running from the Massachusetts line in Nashua to Lake Winnipesaukee, was first provided for in 1907. Laws 1907, c. 139.
The East Side and West Side roads, and the Merrimack Valley road extending to Lincoln, were established in 1909. Laws 1909, c. 155. These different acts and others not mentioned together form a comprehensive plan for the improvement of the roads in the state that have the largest travel. The inauguration of this plan was really commenced! by the enactment of chapters 54 and 133 of the Laws of 1903. Section 6 of chapter 54 provides that:
"No claim shall accrue or exist against the state, and no action be maintained against any town in which a road is situated on which the work of construction is done or repairs made, in whole or in part, at the expense of the state, for or on account of any injury to persons or property on any such road; nor shall any indictment or information be maintained against any town on account of the condition of such road."
It is claimed by the plaintiff that this section had no application to this case. That the exemption was limited to roads within the district created for the purposes of the act by section 2, which comprised Coos, Carroll, and Graiton counties, and to state roads. There is nothing in section 6 to show that it was the legislative intent to so limit the exemption. The section seems rather to be a declaration of a general policy in reference to the plans then forming for the state to assist in road construction and maintenance. It will be noticed that section 6 applies to roads generally, while section 7 relates to highways and roads aforesaid, indicating that no limitation was intended to the exemption of the former section.
This court is now asked for the first time to interpret the legislative purpose in enacting this section. But in the suit of Burroughs v. Hanover in the federal court of this district this section was relied upon as a bar to the plaintiff's action for injury suffered by him as a highway traveler. After verdict for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cozzi v. Hooksett
...§ 6, exempted towns altogether from liability on account of roads made or repaired in whole or in part by the state. Grace v. Town of Belmont, 78 N. H. 112, 97 A. 221. But even though towns had, as a practical matter, little supervision or control over the building or repair of state-aided ......
-
Bridgham v. Effingham
...the whole stretch between the termini mentioned has been completed. The ruling was that: "Following the doctrine of Grace v. Town of Belmont, 78 N. H. 112, 97 A. 221, where a statute quite similar (section 6, c. 54, Laws of 1903) was construed —'The state having contributed to the work of c......
-
Town of Tilton v. Town of Sanbornton
...together form a comprehensive plan for the improvement of the roads in the state that have the largest travel." Grace v. Belmont, 78 N. H. 112, 113, 97 Atl. 221, 222. Hence it follows that former statutes relating to a different system, if they are not expressly or impliedly repealed by the......
-
City of Laconia v. Boston & M. R.R.
...be given appropriate application. This is the necessary inference from the opinions in the cases cited above, and that in Grace v. Belmont, 78 N. H. 112, 97 A. 221. If there had been a general suspension or supersession of all former highway statutes, there would have been no occasion for i......