Peerless Manufacturing Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Peerless Manufacturing Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

61 A. 511, 73 N.H. 328, 1905 N.H. LEXIS 45

DecidedJune 6, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A. 511 (Peerless Manufacturing Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peerless Manufacturing Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 61 A. 511, 73 N.H. 328, 1905 N.H. LEXIS 45 (N.H. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Young, J.

The defendants’ first exception must be overruled because there is evidence from which it can ‘ be found that the defendants’ negligence was the legal cause of the plaintiffs’ loss, and they cannot relieve themselves from the consequences of their wrongful acts by special contract, either in this state or in Massachusetts. Durgin v. Company, 66 N. H. 277; Cox v. Railroad, 170 Mass. 129, 136, 137; School District v. Railroad, 102 Mass. 552. It could be found that if the defendants had used ordinary care in respect to employing watchmen and providing apparatus for extinguishing fires, this one would have been confined to the transfer station. In that ease, notwithstanding the fire started without the defendants’ fault, their negligence in respect to extinguishing it would be the legal cause, and the fire itself only the occasion, of the plaintiffs’ loss.

The evidence in respect to the facilities provided by the city for extinguishing fires was properly admitted, for the precautions that ordinary men would take to protect the property in this yard from fire would depend in some degree, at least, upon the protection furnished by the city. The exception to the amount of the damages in the second case, not having been argued, has not been considered.

.Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Young, J.

The defendants’ first exception must be overruled because there is evidence from which it can ‘ be found that the defendants’ negligence was the legal cause of the plaintiffs’ loss, and they cannot relieve themselves from the consequences of their wrongful acts by special contract, either in this state or in Massachusetts. Durgin v. Company, 66 N. H. 277; Cox v. Railroad, 170 Mass. 129, 136, 137; School District v. Railroad, 102 Mass. 552. It could be found that if the defendants had used ordinary care in respect to employing watchmen and providing apparatus for extinguishing fires, this one would have been confined to the transfer station. In that ease, notwithstanding the fire started without the defendants’ fault, their negligence in respect to extinguishing it would be the legal cause, and the fire itself only the occasion, of the plaintiffs’ loss.

The evidence in respect to the facilities provided by the city for extinguishing fires was properly admitted, for the precautions that ordinary men would take to protect the property in this yard from fire would depend in some degree, at least, upon the protection furnished by the city. The exception to the amount of the damages in the second case, not having been argued, has not been considered.

.Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A. 511, 73 N.H. 328, 1905 N.H. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peerless-manufacturing-co-v-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-nh-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack