From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chadbourne v. Exeter

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Jun 1, 1892
67 N.H. 190 (N.H. 1892)

Opinion

Decided June, 1892.

On a petition for leave to file a claim against a town for damages resulting from a defective highway, evidence on which a jury could properly return a verdict for the plaintiff is sufficient to warrant a finding that manifest injustice would be done by refusing to grant the petition.

PETITION, under Gen. Laws, c. 75, s. 9. The plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence tended to prove that about noon, December 22, 1890, she slipped and fell on the icy and unsanded sidewalk of Main street in the village of Exeter, while walking thereon, and was seriously injured; that she was familiar with the street, and had noticed ice on the walk at other places, but not at the place where she fell; and that she wore rubbers and stepped carefully. The defendants conceded that she was unavoidably prevented from filing the statement required by the statute within ten days after her injury, and that she intended in good faith to prosecute her claim. They objected to the granting of the petition, on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show due care on the part of the plaintiff or negligence on the part of the defendants, and did not warrant a finding that manifest injustice would be done by a denial of the petition. The court granted the petition, and the defendants excepted.

Russell Boyer, for the plaintiff.

Arthur O. Fuller and Edwin G. Eastman, for the defendants.


There was evidence tending to prove the facts necessary to be established in order to entitle the plaintiff to recover in an action against the town. A verdict in her favor could not be set aside on the ground that there was no evidence tending to show that she exercised ordinary care, or that the defendants neglected their duty. To deny the plaintiff an opportunity to try the merits of her claim, when, on the evidence presented, a verdict might properly be found in her favor, may be manifest injustice within the meaning of the statute. Gitchell v. Andover, 59 N.H. 363.

Exceptions overruled.

SMITH, J., did not sit: the others concurred.


Summaries of

Chadbourne v. Exeter

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham
Jun 1, 1892
67 N.H. 190 (N.H. 1892)
Case details for

Chadbourne v. Exeter

Case Details

Full title:CHADBOURNE v. EXETER

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham

Date published: Jun 1, 1892

Citations

67 N.H. 190 (N.H. 1892)
29 A. 408

Citing Cases

Welsh v. Franklin

Whether the point at which the plaintiff was injured was a bridge, a culvert, or a raised sidewalk, merely,…

Prichard v. Boscawen

The mere fact that she voluntarily encountered a known danger does not establish the proposition that she was…