Ray v. Sanborn
Decision Date | 20 April 1955 |
Citation | 113 A.2d 488,99 N.H. 438 |
Parties | Gordon RAY et al. v. Arthur SANBORN. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Robert Shaw, Exeter (by brief and orally), for plaintiffs.
Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Nassikas & Pingree and Bartram C. Branch, Manchester, for defendant.
There being no transcript of the testimony no question relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings made can properly be raised. Nelson v. Morse, 91 N.H. 177, 178, 16 A.2d 61; Willis v. Wilkins, 92 N.H. 400, 403, 32 A.2d 321.
It is the position of the plaintiffs, however, that although the court made a general finding that defendant was not guilty of negligence it also made certain subsidiary findings which compel a ruling of negligence as a matter of law. The court found 'that the defendant did not reduce his speed substantially in entering the curve upon which the collision took place.' Plaintiffs argue that due to the hazards existing at the time, darkness, reduced visibility, icy condition of the highway and the curve, the defendant thus violated the requirements of R.L. c. 119, § 30, Laws 1949, c. 286, § 2, and his conduct constituted causal negligence as a matter of law. Tufts v. White, 92 N.H. 158, 26 A.2d 679.
The court also found 'that speed was not an element or circumstance resulting in the accident' or 'a causal factor in the injuries sustained.' Richard Ray who was traveling at between 15 and 20 miles per hour could not stop before coming into collision with the rear of the Simonds' car stopped ahead of him. The defendant with a car length less in which to stop did not bring his vehicle to a halt before colliding with the Ray car. We cannot say as a matter of law that a reasonable man must find that speed was causal. It being findable that violation by the defendant of R.L. c. 119, § 30, was not causal of the accident plaintiffs are not entitled to verdicts as a matter of law. Maiwald v. Public Service Co., 93 N.H. 276, 278, 41 A.2d 247; Bellemare v. Ford, 94 N.H. 38, 42, 45 A.2d 882; Wentworth Bus Lines v. Sanborn, 99 N.H. 5, 7, 104 A.2d 392.
The court, over plaintiffs' objection, admitted the testimony of a passenger in defendant's car that at the time of the accident the defendant did everything he could under the circumstances to avoid the collision. This was opinion evidence and was not improper. Sanders v H. P. Welch Co., 92 N.H. 74, 81, 26 A.2d 34; Dimock v. Lussier, 86...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bernier Bros., Inc. v. Biron
...standing wood on the Eastman property and the latter complied with those directions.' Hence, on this transferred record (Ray v. Sanborn, 99 N.H. 438, 440, 113 A.2d 488), Ernest Biron individually could not be found liable for the conversion by the corporation and there must be a verdict for......
-
Riendeau v. Municipal Court of Milford
...the determination of many questions of law which could be transferred. Nelson v. Morse, 91 N.H. 177, 178, 16 A.2d 61; Ray v. Sanborn, 99 N.H. 438, 439, 113 A.2d 488. There has been no showing that the justice of the municipal court of Milford has abused his discretion in refusing to transfe......
-
Gobbi v. Moulton, 5590
...is no evidence upon which the Master could find that a reasonable prudent man would have noticed the oil in the tray.' Ray v. Sanborn, 99 N.H. 438, 439, 440, 113 A.2d 488. In the absence of evidence of specific negligent conduct of the defendant, the master, as the trier of facts, could pro......
-
Haverhill Journal v. Southwick Const. Co.
...the absence of any transcript of the evidence, we find no errors. It follows that the defendant's exceptions are overruled. Ray v. Sanborn, 99 N.H. 438, 113 A.2d 488; Gobbi v. Moulton, 108 N.H. 183, 186, 230 A.2d The order is Judgment on the verdict. ...