Petrus v. Berlin Mills Co.
71 A. 213, 75 N.H. 587, 1908 N.H. LEXIS 65
Opinion
There was evidence that the defendants either knew or ought to have known of the danger incident to the condition of their premises which caused the plaintiff’s injury, in season to have removed the danger or to have warned him of it, and that, he neither knew of the danger nor was in fault for not knowing-of it.,, Consequently, the evidence should have been submitted to-the jury.
Exception sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Petrus v. Berlin Mills Co., 71 A. 213, 75 N.H. 587, 1908 N.H. LEXIS 65 (N.H. 1908).
71 A. 213 (Petrus v. Berlin Mills Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Turner v. Globe Automatic Sprinkler Co.
128 A. 529 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1925)