139 A. 580
Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham.
Decided December 6, 1927.
In case for injuries to the plaintiff’s wife and minor son by driving a wagon upon a sidewalk and injuring them, the question of the driver’s negligence in unexpectedly driving upon them when they were in an apparently safe place was properly submitted to the jury, irrespective of the question whether to such an action contributory negligence might in a proper case constitute a defence.
TWO ACTIONS OF CASE, to recover for damage caused by injuries inflicted upon the wives of the respective plaintiffs and the minor son of Kouchkian. Trial by jury and verdicts for the plaintiffs. The defendant’s motions for directed verdicts were denied by Doe, J., subject to an exception which was transferred by Sawyer, C. J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
John L. Mitchell and Ernest L. Guptill, for the plaintiffs.
Samuel W. Emery, for the defendant.
PEASLEE, C. J.
It appeared in evidence that the defendant’s servant drove a wagon drawn by six or eight horses over a cross-walk to a connecting street, and that when the pole horses reached the walk he shouted to the people assembled some fifteen feet down the sidewalk, swung the pole and wagon sharply around in that direction and there struck and injured the plaintiffs’ wives. There can be no serious question of the propriety of submitting the issue of his negligence to the jury. Chatel v. Schonland, 75 N.H. 543.
If it be assumed that the negligence of the parties injured would bar these suits (see Guevin v. Railway, 78 N.H. 289), the case was still for the jury; for it could well be found that they were in an apparently safe place when the driver’s unexpected act left them no opportunity to escape before the wagon was upon them. Gilbert v. Burque, 72 N.H. 521.
Exception overruled.
All concurred.
Page 148