Pierce v. Boston & M. R. R.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1928 |
| Citation | 143 A. 903 |
| Parties | PIERCE v. BOSTON & M. R. R. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Grafton County; Sawyer, Judge.
Case for negligence by Mary E. Pierce against the Boston & Maine Railroad. Verdict for plaintiff. Transferred on defendant's exceptions to denial of its motion for nonsuit and a directed verdict. Judgment on the verdict.
Case for negligence. Trial by Jury. Verdict for the plaintiff.
There was evidence from which the following facts could be found: The plaintiff was Injured upon September 17, 1925, when an automobile driven by her broke through the railing of a highway bridge maintained by the defendant over its tracks in the town of Enfield and fell to the ground below. The road at that time was wet and slippery. As the plaintiff's car approached the bridge at a speed of 15 to 18 miles per hour, the rear wheels struck a bump in the road which caused them to skid, As a result, the car surmounted the wheel guard and struck a glancing blow against the right-hand railing, which "fell over in a body." The railing offered no apparent resistance to the car. It "seemed like paper." Of the four upright posts Supporting it, three were broken off and appeared to be very rotten. This railing was constructed five years before the accident, and had never been altered or repaired.
Transferred upon the defendant's exceptions to the denial of its motions for a non-Suit and a directed verdict.
Murchie & Murchie and Alexander Murchie, all of Concord, for plaintiff.
Jewett & Jewett and Stephen S. Jewett, all of Laconia, for defendant.
It was a statutory duty of the defendant "to provide suitable crossings" over its tracks "for the accommodation of the public." P. S. c. 159, § 1; P. L. c. 249, § 1. "A bridge carrying highway travel over a railroad is a crossing, within the meaning of this statute." Laconia v. Boston & M. Railroad, 81 N. H. 408, 409, 128 A. 350, 351; City of Concord v. Boston & M. Railroad, 69 N. H. 87, 38 A. 378. Such structures are regarded in law not as parts of the highways but parts of the railroad, which it is "bound to keep in repair suitable for the public travel thereon." Laconia v. Boston & M. Railroad, Supra, page 411 of 81 N. H. (128 A. 352); Worcester, etc., Railroad v. Nashua, 63 N. H. 593, 596, 4 A. 298.
Hence it was the duty of the defendant to exercise reasonable care to keep the bridge in question "in a reasonably safe and convenient condition for public use."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Town of Hampton
...of the contact would have probably saved serious consequences to the occupants of the car, were questions for the jury. Pierce v. Railroad (N. H.) 143 A. 903; Kelsea v. Stratford, 80 N. H. 148, 118 A. 9. The position is taken that there would have been no accident, but for the loose dirt in......
-
Calley v. Boston & Me. R. R.
...c. 299, § 1, it was the duty of the defendant railroad to keep it in a reasonably safe condition for public use. Pierce v. Boston & M. Railroad, 83 N.H. 466, 143 A. 903, and cases cited. How far compliance with a detailed administrative order constitutes a defense in actions of this kind ne......
-
Shea v. Boston & M. R. R.
...Boston & Maine Railroad, 69 N.H. 87, 38 A. 378; Laconia v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 81 N.H. 408, 411, 128 A. 350; Pierce v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 83 N.H. 466, 143 A. 903. The inquiry is presented whether the had any duty to make the crossing safer or to take action for its relocation. As......
-
Patterson v. Boston & M.R.R.
...a crossing at grade, or a pass under it.' Horne v. Atlantic & St. Lawrence Railroad, supra, 36 N.H. 445. See also, Pierce v. Boston & M. Railroad, 83 N.H. 466, 143 A. 903; Shea v. Boston & M. Railroad, 88 N.H. 462, 468, 191 A. 650. As elsewhere expressed, the question of 'location' is to be......