Robin v. Bartlett

Decision Date16 March 1888
Citation64 N.H. 426,13 A. 645
PartiesROBIN v. BARTLETT.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Reserved case from Carroll county.

Case for injuries upon a highway. The defect complained of was a snow drift. The plaintiff's filed statement, verified by her oath, was as follows: "To the Town of Bartlett: I, Chestina A. Robin, hereby give notice to the town of Bartlett that on the 15th day of April, 1886, while travelling with a horse and wagon upon the highway leading from Bartlett to Conway, in said town of Bartlett, at a point about twenty rods south-easterly from the place now occupied by William Philbrook, and near where the road turns to pass over Thorne Hill, by reason of a defect, insufficiency, and want of repair, which rendered said highway unsuitable for travel thereon, I was thrown across the wagon and injured, in the small of the back, and upon the side and hip, and received internal and other injuries, which I cannot now particularly describe; and for said injuries resulting from said defect in said highway I claim from the town of Bartlett the sum of two thousand dollars." The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the place of the accident was 31 rods from Philbrook's house, and 17 rods from the Thorn Hill road junction. The defendant's evidence tended to show that the place of the accident was 55 or 60 rods from Philbrook's house. The defendant moved for a verdict because the statement did not point out the exact place of the accident. The motion was denied, and the defendant excepted. The court submitted the question of the sufficiency of the statement to the jury, with the following instructions, viz.: "The place of the accident should be described in the notice with such exactness that it may be ascertained, located, or identified by the town authorities without further information. It was not intended that the selectmen should be compelled to resort to the injured traveler, or to any other person for information. The description should be given with such exactness that the town authorities, going upon the ground with the notice, may be able to find it without its being pointed out. If you find the place of the accident given in the notice is substantially correct, the notice is sufficient. Or if you find the notice contains enough to enable the selectmen by using reasonable diligence to ascertain the place of the accident, the place is described with sufficient exactness; otherwise not." On the morning after the accident the plaintiff discovered a rectocele, which has existed ever since, and with other womb difficulties has rendered her unable to perform any labor except such light work as can be done while seated. Before she made the foregoing statement she was examined by physicians, who informed her of the rectocele. Upon the question of damages the court instructed the jury that "the plaintiff can recover damages for all the injuries sustained by reason of the accident, [including the rectocele and other womb difficulties, if caused by the accident, and she is not limited by the sum named in the notice.]" The plaintiff excepted to the instruction that the notice must be sufficient to enable the town authorities to ascertain the place of the accident without further information. The defendants excepted to the instructions in relation to notice and to the part of the instructions in regard to damages included in brackets. The jury did not agree, and the question raised by the exceptions are reserved.

E. A. & C. Hibbard and F. B. Osgood, for plaintiff. G. W. M. Pitman, J. A. Edgerly, and Ray & Remick, for defendant.

CARPENTER, J. "Every person, sustaining damage to his person, team, or carriage, while traveling upon any highway or bridge thereon, by reason of any obstruction, defect, insufficiency, or want of repair, rendering it unsuitable for travel thereon, shall, within ten days from the date of receiving such damage, file with the selectmen of the town...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Johnson v. City of Fargo
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1906
    ... ... 735 ...          Barnett & Richardson, for respondents ...          Notice ... to the mayor and council was sufficient. Robin v ... Bartlett, 13 A. 645; Trost v. City of ... Casselton, 8 N.D. 534; Cowan v. Inhabitants, ... etc., 56 A. 901; Fopper v. Town of Wheatland, ... ...
  • Derosier v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1925
    ... ... Bartlett v. Hoyt, 33 N. H. 151,165,166; Folsom v. Plumer, 43 N. H. 469, 472; Field v. Tenney, 47 N. H. 513, 521; Hall v. Brown, 58 N. H. 93, 98; Robin v ... ...
  • Bolduc v. Richards
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1958
  • Sargent v. Town of Gilford
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • July 31, 1891
    ...resist them if they turn out to be false or exaggerated. Leonard v. Bath, 61 N. H. 67; Carr v. Ashland, 62 N. H. 665; Robin v. Bartlett, 64 N. H. 426, 13 Atl. Rep. 645. The liability to imposition and fraud is as great in cases where consequential damages are claimed for injuries to one's w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT