Quimby v. Boston & M. R. R.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1920 |
| Citation | 111 A. 302 |
| Parties | QUIMBY v. BOSTON & M. R. R. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Grafton County; Sawyer, Judge.
Action on the case for personal injuries by David L. Quimby against the Boston & Maine Railroad. Verdict for plaintiff, and case transferred from superior court on defendant's objections to the denial of his motion for nonsuit and for a directed verdict. Exceptions overruled, and judgment rendered on verdict.
Murchie & Murchie and Alexander Murchie, all of Concord, for plaintiff.
Leslie P. Snow, of Rochester, Alvin Burleigh, of Plymouth, and Jewett & Jewett and Theo. S. Jewett, all of Laconia, for defendant.
From the plaintiff's evidence the following facts might reasonablys be found:
On the day he was injured he was working for the Parker-Young Company in Lisbon, driving a horse attached to a tipcart, which he had loaded with slab wood and was about to transport it across the defondant's track over a private crossing, which was maintained there for the convenience of the Parker-Young Company. He had been engaged in this work for several days, and knew that a train was due at the crossing. Before attempting to drive over the crossing, he stopped his team near it, and, walking onto it, looked down the track to see if the train was in sight; but on account of a dense bank of steam escaping from a building near the track he was unable to see the train. The steam extended some 40 feet below the crossing. The locomotive whistle was not sounded, nor was the hell rung, signals which were usually given at the point, and which he in part relied upon to warn him that a train was about to occupy the crossing. Not being able to see the train, and not hearing the signals, he started to drive over the crossing when the train came through the steam at a slow rate of speed, collided with the team, and inflicted the injuries upon the plaintiff for which he seeks to recover damages. The approaching train made very little noise and the plaintiff did not hear it until he was upon the track. Though he was some deaf, he was able to hear the whistle when it sounded, and to hear the bell when it rang.
This brief statement of the facts deducible from the evidence renders argument unnecessary in support of the proposition that it does not conclusively appear that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Whether he was or not was therefore a proper question for the jury. Nawn v. Railroad, 77...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Boston & M. R. R.
...N. H. 206, 123 A. 233; Morier v. Hines, 81 N. H. 48, 122 A. 330; Speares Sons Co. v. Railroad, 80 N. H. 243, 116 A. 343; Quimby v. Railroad, 79 N. H. 529, 111 A. 302; McGinley v. Railroad, 79 N. H. 159, 106 A. 641; Fuller v. Railroad, 78 N. H. 366, 100 A. 546; Wiggin v. Railroad, 75 N. H. 6......
-
McCarthy v. Souther
...as might be had. When the decedent started to cross the street, he had the right to rely on careful driving towards him. Quimby v. Railroad. 79 N. H. 529, 111 A. 302, and cases "In the absence of notice to the contrary, one person is justified in presuming that the other will act in accorda......
-
Wentworth v. Boston & M. R. R.
...Since the crossing was a private one, the statutory signals were not required, and it was not the practice, as in Quimby v. Boston & M. Railroad, 79 N. H. 529, 111 A. 302, to whistle at that point. There was nothing in the ordinary use of the crossing which called for special protection as ......
-
Chemikles v. J. M. Wilson Co.
...that it would be operated with due care for his safety. Lyman v. Railroad, 66 N. H. 200, 203, 20 A. 976, 11 L. R. A. 364; Quimby v. Railroad, 79 N. H. 529, 111 A. 302. "That it looked safe to undertake the crossing in the way he did might be found, and negligence in thus carrying out the un......