Schwotzer v. Sherwood
Rudolph Schwotzer v. Allan Sherwood. John Ahern v. Same. John Urick v. Same.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
There was abundant evidence of the defendant’s negligence. The mere fact that Urick, in the emergency, turned his car to the left did not preclude recovery.
Gale v. Lisbon, 52 N. H. 174, 180, 181. See also Reed v. Company, 84 N. H. 156, 159. He had a right to a reasonable use of the road, and in turning to the left he was not attempting to pass the defendant’s car. Having rightfully done what he did, he was not hable merely because he helped to create a situation dangerous to others as well as himself.
Nor were the plaintiffs necessarily at fault for failing to jump from the car. The car was stalled and Urick was trying his best to get it *488 started. It was a two-door sedan, and the other plaintiffs were on the rear seat. What due care required under the circumstances was essentially a question of fact.
Folsom v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 454, 460.
This conclusion makes it unnecessary to consider the defendant’s contention that the plaintiffs cannot recover under the doctrine of the last clear chance. No exception to the submission of that issue was taken.
Judgments on the verdicts.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.