Shea v. City of Manchester
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Writing for the Court | MARBLE, Justice |
| Citation | 3 A.2d 103 |
| Parties | SHEA v. CITY OF MANCHESTER (two cases). |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1938 |
SHEA
v.
CITY OF MANCHESTER (two cases).
Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Hillsborough.
Dec. 6, 1938.
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; James, Judge.
Two actions on the case, the one by Mary E. Shea against the City of Manchester and the other by Jeremiah P. Shea against the City of Manchester, tried together by jury, to recover for personal injuries to Mary E. Shea sustained when she tripped over cap of water shut-off pipe located near the edge of the sidewalk. Verdicts for both plaintiffs, defendant's motions for nonsuits and directed verdicts were denied, subject to exceptions, and the cases were transferred.
Judgments on the verdicts.
Two actions of case, for negligence, tried together by jury with verdicts for both plaintiffs. The first action is brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by Mary E. Shea, hereinafter called the plaintiff, when she fell over the cap of a water shut-off pipe located near the edge of the sidewalk on Colby Street in Manchester. This cap was one of many similar caps installed throughout the city as a part of the defendant's system of waterworks. When properly adjusted, these caps were approximately flush with the sidewalk. The other action is brought by the plaintiff's husband to recover the loss occasioned him by reason of the accident.
Motions for nonsuits and directed verdicts were denied subject to the defendant's exceptions. The defendant also excepted to the refusal of the Court to set aside the verdicts as contrary to the law and the evidence and the weight of the evidence. Further facts are stated in the opinion.
Sullivan & Sullivan, of Manchester (Thomas E. Dolan, of Manchester, orally), for plaintiffs.
William H. Craig and J. Francis Roche, both of Manchester, for defendant.
MARBLE, Justice.
Counsel for the defendant concede that the city of Manchester in furnishing water to its inhabitants at established rates acts in a private, proprietary capacity and may therefore be held liable for an injury caused by the negligent maintenance of its water system. See Douglas v. Hollis 86 N.H. 578, 580, 172 A. 433, and cases cited. The accident occurred on the afternoon of June 5, 1936, and the cap over which the plaintiff fell had worked up some three inches above the level of the sidewalk through the action of the frost that spring.
Since this situation was created by weather conditions and since there is no evidence that the defendant knew that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grierson
...not saved by special exceptions taken during the trial. State v. Proctor, 91 N.H. 347, 18 A.2d 753; Shea v. Manchester, 89 N.H. 547, 549, 3 A.2d 103, and cases cited. The record discloses no grounds for disturbing Page 856 the Court's [96 N.H. 42] denial of this motion and no other error ap......
-
Day v. City of Berlin, 4148.
...sewers, and presumably also water systems, see Roberts v. Dover, 72 N.H. 147, 55 A. 895 and Shea v. City of Manchester, 89 N.H. 547, 3 A.2d 103, creating a logically irreconcilable exception but one now too firmly established to be abandoned. Pinsonneault v. City of Concord, 80 N.H. 539, 12......
-
Petition of Leon Keyser, Inc.
...in favor of Manchester Water Works is not a statutory bond. Reliance is placed on the holding in Shea v. City of Manchester, 89 N.H. 547, 3 A.2d 103, that the sale of water is a proprietary and not a governmental function. See also, Whitefield &c. District v. Bobst, 93 N.H. 229, 231, 39 A.2......
-
Cartier v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Corp.
...v. Nashua Mfg. Company, 91 N.H. 211, 16 A.2d 700; Martin v. Boston & M. Railroad, 91 N.H. 63, 13 A.2d 465; Shea v. Manchester, 89 N.H. 547, 3 A.2d 103; Dorrien v. Sirois, 87 N.H. 144, 147, 175 A. 236; Howe v. Amoskeag Mfg. Company, 87 N.H. 122, 126, 174 A. 776; Burns v. Cote, 86 N.H. 167, 1......