Kusky v. Laderbush
Decision Date | 06 July 1950 |
Citation | 74 A.2d 546,96 N.H. 286,21 A.L.R.2d 536 |
Parties | , 21 A.L.R.2d 536 KUSKY v. LADERBUSH. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Varney, Levy & Winton, Portsmouth, for plaintiff, filed no brief.
Hughes & Burns and Donald R. Bryant, Dover (by brief), for defendant.
The Trial Court denied the motion after consideration of the allegations therein made by the defendant. This form of proceeding was accepted by both parties without objection and it is now too late for either of them to object to it. Vidal v. Errorl, 86 N.H. 585, 586, 172 A. 437; Morrill v. Amoskeag Bank, 90 N.H. 358, 359, 9 A.2d 519.
The question before this court for decision is whether the Trial Court's finding could reasonably be made on the evidence before him. Wisutskie v. Malouin, 88 N.H. 242, 246, 186 A. 769; Romano v. Littleton Construction Co., 95 N.H. 404, 406, 64 A.2d 695; Small v. Chronical and Gazette Publishing Co., N.H., 74 A.2d 544.
If the interests of justice demanded it, the Trial Court had the authority in the exercise of a sound discretion to order an autopsy. State v. Wood, 127 Me. 197, 142 A. 728; Ullendorff v. Brown, 156 Fla. 655, 24 So.2d 37; Sexson v. Commonwealth, 239 Ky. 177, 39 S.W.2d 229; Silvia v. Helger, R. I., 67 A.2d 27, 10 A.L.R.2d 216; 15 Am.Jur. 842; 25 C.J.S., Dead Bodies, § 4, p. 1020; 8 Wig.Ev., 3d Ed., 210; see Ingram v. Boston & M. Railroad, 89 N.H. 277, 279, 197 A. 822; Lefebvre v. Somersworth Shoe Co., 93 N.H. 354, 356, 41 A.2d 924; Krook v. Blomberg, 95 N.H. 170, 59 A.2d 482; Staagaard v. Public Service Co., 96 N.H. 17, 69 A.2d 4.
We agree that Currier v. Woodlawn Cemetery, 300 N.Y. 162, 90 N.E.2d 18, 19; Labigne v. Wilkingson, 80 N.H. 221, 116 A. 32.
However, '[t]he right to have a dead body remain unmolested is not an absolute one; it must yield where it conflicts with the public good or where the demands of justice require such subordination'. Silvia v. Helger, supra, R.I., 67 A.2d 28, 10 A.L.R.2d 216. The plaintiff in this case has brought an action against the defendant with an ad damnum of $25,000. He died about eleven months after the accident in which he was injured. His widow is claiming that his death was due to and caused by that accident, as well as his disability during the period between the accident and his decease. The defendant maintains that this autopsy is necessary to determine the nature of the deceased's injuries as well as the cause of his death, the defendant believing that plaintiff died of cancer.
It seems to us that the autopsy is very material to the defense of this action by the defendant. Ingram v. Boston & M. Railroad, supra. It may be vital. Lefebvre v. Somersworth Shoe Co., supra. The fact that he might have other sources of evidence on the subject would not prevent his being granted the relief sought. Reynolds v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co., 71 N.H. 332, 339, 51 A. 1075, 57 L.R.A. 949, 93 Am.St.Rep. 535; Ingram v Boston & M. Railroad, supra. We see no evidence in the record of this case which could reasonably justify a denial of defendant's motion for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wawrykow v. Simonich
...317, 325 (1964) (citations omitted). Accord Petition of Sheffield Farms Co., 22 N.J. 548, 126 A.2d 886, 891 (1956); Kusky v. Laderbush, 96 N.H. 286, 74 A.2d 546 (1950); Stevens v. Ganz, 49 Pa.D. & C.2d 283 (Lehigh Cty., Instantly, in establishing cause (be it labelled "reasonable," "good," ......
-
Mills v. Carolina Cemetery Park Corp.
...39 S.W.2d 229; Fowlkes v. Fowlkes, Tex.Civ.App., 133 S.W.2d 241; Goldman v. Mollen, 168 Va. 345, 191 S.E. 627; Kusky v. Laderbush, 96 N.H. 286, 74 A.2d 546, 21 A.L.R.2d 536; Currier v. Woodlawn Cemetery, 300 N.Y. 162, 90 N.E.2d 18, 21 A.L.R.2d 'Neither the ecclesiastical, common, nor civil ......
-
State v. Story
...Interstate Bridge Authority, 92 N.H. 432, 434, 33 A.2d 739; Perreault v. Allen Oil Company, 87 N.H. 306, 308, 179 A. 365; Kusky v. Laderbush, 96 N.H. 286, 74 A.2d 546. In our opinion the jury could properly find on the evidence that actual cost meant what the State contended, viz; the price......
-
McDuffey v. Boston & M.R.R.
...Court subject to review only for abuse of discretion. Ingram v. Boston & M. Railroad, 89 N.H. 277, 197 A. 822; Kusky v. Landerbush, 96 N.H. 286, 74 A.2d 546, 21 A.L.R.2d 536; Amoskeag-Lawrence Mills, Inc. v. State, 101 N.H. 101, 133 A.2d The fact that the discovery order in this case may pr......