TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Vaughan v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Hattie T. Vaughan, Adm’x, v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Vaughan v. Boston & Me. R.R., 103 A. 129 (N.H. 1918)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 5, 1918
Judges
Plummer
Citations
103 A. 12978 N.H. 6151918 N.H. LEXIS 63
Headnotes
Case, to recover for negligently causing the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, Henry Thompson, at Rockingham Junction, on December 12, 1914. Trial by jury. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendants’ motion for a nonsuit was granted subject to the plaintiff’s exception. Transferred from the May term, 1917, of the superior court, by Sawyer, J.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Plummer

Plummer, J.

The plaintiff’s intestate, Henry Thompson, went from his home in Newfields to Newmarket by train on the evening of December 12, 1914. He was run over and killed on the east bound track of the defendants’ railroad, main line, at Rockingham Junction, some time during that night. His remains, which were found on the track on the morning of the thirteenth, indicated that a train had passed over his body more than once. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove that Thompson was at the Newmarket station, on the evening of December 12,1914, at about 10:30 o’clock, in an intoxicated condition; that a special train running between Dover and Exeter that night came into the Newmarket station at that time; and that Thompson got onto the platform of a car. No one saw him on the train, although several people who knew him were on the train including his son who was expecting him to get on at Newmarket, and looked out to see if he could see him. There was no evidence that disclosed Thompson’s movements after he was seen at Newmarket. The circumstances that surround his death are unknown.

The burden was upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendants’ negligence caused the intestate’s death, and that the intestate was free from fault. The evidence did not furnish proof from which the jury could find either of these fundamental requirements, and therefore the nonsuit was properly ordered. A verdict found for the plaintiff in this case would necessarily be based upon surmises and conjectures, instead of legal evidence such as the law demands *616 Dingman v. Merrill, 77 N. H. 485;

Reynolds v. Company, 73 N. H. 126;

Dame v. Car Works, 71 N. H. 407;

Deschenes v. Railroad, 69 N. H. 285. The present case is very similar to Currier v. Railroad, ante, 586.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1920: 11932: 119202026peak 1920 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nadeau v. Stevens111 A. 749 (N.H. 1920)
  2. Davis v. Nox-All Shoe Co.159 A. 126 (N.H. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Davis v. Nox-All Shoe Co.159 A. 126 (N.H. 1932)
  2. Nadeau v. Stevens111 A. 749 (N.H. 1920)

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.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Deschenes v. Concord & Montreal R.R., 46 A. 467 (N.H. 1897) 31
Reynolds v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co., 59 A. 615 (N.H. 1904) 13
Dame v. Laconia Car Co. Works, 52 A. 864 (N.H. 1902) 11
Dingman v. Merrill, 93 A. 664 (N.H. 1915) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list