Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Martel
| Decision Date | 04 May 1937 |
| Citation | 192 A. 152 |
| Parties | LIBERTY MUT. INS. CO. v. MARTEL et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Johnston, Judge.
Suit by the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company against Louis E. Martel and others. Plaintiff's exceptions to denial of its motion for directed verdict were transferred to the Supreme Court.
Decree for plaintiff.
Bill in equity, brought for the purpose of determining the question of coverage under a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by the plaintiff to the defendant Martel.
The superior court, subject to the plaintiff's exception, ordered that an issue be framed for the jury and ruled that the burden of proof on the issue of non-coverage rested upon the plaintiff. Pursuant to this order the court submitted the following question to a jury: "Was Roland Dulac operating the truck of Louis E. Martel August 25, 1933, at the time when Patrick J. Gibbons and Bertha Duplissis Gibbons were injured, with the consent or permission, either express or implied, of the said Louis E. Martel?" To this question the jury gave an affirmative answer.
The plaintiff's exception to the denial of its motion for a directed verdict of non-coverage, and its exception to the ruling which placed upon it the burden of proof on that issue, were transferred by Johnston, J. Other questions which were transferred without ruling do not now call for consideration.
Wyman, Starr, Booth, Wadleigh & Langdell and Winthrop Wadleigh, all of Manchester, for plaintiff. Omer H. Amyot, Osgood & Osgood, and Cyprien J. Belanger, all of Manchester, for defendants.
The ruling of the court in relation to the burden of proof was erroneous. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Greenough, 88 N.H. ——, 190 A. 129.
A new trial is not required, however, because we are of the opinion that the record contains no evidence whatever in support of the verdict returned by the jury. Both Martel and Dulac, being, respectively, the owner and driver of the truck, testified definitely that at the time of the accident it was being driven by Dulac upon business of his own, without the knowledge or consent of Martel, and contrary to the latter's express orders. They also testified that it had never been so used before, that Dulac was first employed by Martel only five days previous to the accident, and that it was no part of his duty to drive the truck for any purpose. The only other evidence in the case on this point was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Gore
...similar to those of March 18, 1950. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Chandler, 89 N.H. 95, 99, 193 A. 233. The case of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martel, 88 N.H. 479, 192 A. 152, relied upon by the plaintiff is not authority to the contrary. There the evidence tended to prove at most that the ow......
- Amoskeag Sav. Bank v. Shell E. Petroleum Prods., Inc.
-
Merchants Mut. Cas. Co. v. Kennett
...if the company had defended the action. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Greenough, 88 N.H. 391, 190 A. 129, 109 A.L.R. 1096; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Martel, 88 N.H. 479, 192 A. 152. The reason for the rule receives scant recognition in the recent case of Travelers Ins. Co. v. Drumheller, D. C, 25 ......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Marcoux, 3243.
...permission, either express or implied, to use the car in the way she was using it at the time of the accident. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martel, 88 N.H. 479, 192 A. 152. "The duty to return implied no consent to use." Morin v. Travelers' Ins. Company, 85 N.H. 471, 473, 160 A. 482, The......