Monier v. Belzil, 4046
| Decision Date | 06 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 4046,4046 |
| Citation | 97 N.H. 176,83 A.2d 923 |
| Parties | MONINER v. BELZIL. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Robert J. Doyle and Bolic A. Degasis, Nashua, for the plaintiff.
Paul E. Nourie, Manchester, for the defendant.
The main issue argued before us is whether a landowner is under a duty to use reasonable care to make his premises reasonably safe for an invitee, or whether he must use reasonable care to make his premises absolutely safe. The defendant claims and the plaintiff concedes that the rule laid down in such cases as Lynch v. Sprague, 95 N.H. 485, 487, 66 A.2d 697, Jakel v. Brockelman Bros., 91 N.H. 453, 21 A.2d 155, and Cable v. Donahue & Hamlin, 85 N.H. 258, 161 A. 383, is that the owner is under a duty only to use reasonable care to make his premises reasonably safe. See also, Blackman v. Rowe, 96 N.H. 207, 72 A.2d 460; Holmes v. Clear Weave Hosiery Stores, 95 N.H. 478, 480, 66 A.2d 702; Roy v. Amoskeag Fabrics, Inc., 93 N.H. 324, 41 A.2d 607; Cartier v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Corporation, 92 N.H. 263, 29 A.2d 423. This view we believe represents the overwhelming weight of authority in this country. Res.Torts, § 343; Id. (c)(i); 162 A.L.R. 950 Note; 38 Am.Jur. 754.
However, the plaintiff cites Frear v. Manchester Traction, Light & Power Company, 83 N.H. 64, 139 A. 86, 61 A.L.R. 1280, as the basis for his claim that the owner must use reasonable care to make his premises absolutely safe for invitees. But there it must be noted that while the court did say that the defendants were under 'a duty to use due care to have the place safe', 83 N.H. at page 68, 139 A. at page 89, the opinion went on to quote approvingly as follows, 83 N.H. at pages 70-71, 139 A. at page 90: "One who invites others to come upon his premises for business or pleasure must exercise reasonable care to have and keep the premises reasonably safe for such visitors. * * * It was the duty of the defendant to use reasonable care to keep * * * the grounds to which he had invited the plaintiff in a reasonably safe condition * * *.' Turgeon v. Connecticut Company, 84 Conn. 538, 541, 80 A. 714, 715.' (Emphasis ours.) Later, the same Justice who wrote the opinion in the Frear case (Peaslee, C. J.) also wrote the opinion in Cable v. Donahue & Hamlin, 85 N.H. 258, 161 A. 383, and therein impliedly approved those portions of the charge given in the Superior Court wherein the jury were repeatedly told that the owner's duty was to make its premises 'reasonably safe.' We believe when the court said in the Frear case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black v. Fiandaca
...94 N.H. 30, 45 A.2d 656; Papakalos v. Shaka, 91 N.H. 265, 18 A.2d 377; Menard v. Cashman, 94 N.H. 428, 430, 55 A.2d 156; Monier v. Belzil, 97 N.H. 176, 83 A.2d 923; Restatement, Torts, § If the tenants' use of the attic was pursuant to oral license only, granted primarily for their own conv......
-
Sleeper v. World of Mirth Show, Inc.
...of which it knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known. Lynch v. Sprague, 95 N.H. 485, 66 A.2d 697; Monier v. Belzil, 97 N.H. 176, 83 A.2d 923. The plaintiff was entitled to rely on the performance of this duty by the defendant and was not chargeable as a matter of law wit......
-
Dubreuil v. Dubreuil
...the law of this jurisdiction, the landlords had a duty to use reasonable care to see that the driveway was reasonably safe (Monier v. Belzil, 97 N.H. 176, 83 A.2d 923; Thompson v. Resnik, 85 N.H. 413, 414, 159 A. 355) by removing natural accumulations of snow and ice thereon or taking other......
-
Barrett v. Foster Grant Co., Civ. A. No. 2944.
...of safety, and that the plaintiff "was entitled to place some reliance on the performance of that duty." See also Monier v. Belzil, 97 N.H. 176, 83 A.2d 923 (1951). It is also clear that the duty of a landowner to keep his premises reasonably safe extends to employees of an independent cont......