[DOWNLOAD] "Anthony Vassillion v. John J. Sullivan &" by Supreme Court of New Hampshire * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Anthony Vassillion v. John J. Sullivan &
- Author : Supreme Court of New Hampshire
- Release Date : January 07, 1946
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 45 KB
Description
Although the defendants contend that the case of Mandell v. Company, ante, 1, is not decisive of the present case, a matter hereinafter considered, their principal argument has consisted of an attempt to show that that case was unwisely decided and should not be applied ""in the decision of this or other cases coming before this Court."" The argument upon this point has been so solemnly and so vigorously pressed that we have taken occasion to re-examine the grounds of our decision in the Mandell case with the following result. The controversy involves the interpretation of P. L., c. 101, s. 9, and Laws, 1937, c. 69, s. 1, which now appear as R. L., c. 117, s. 9. Section 9 of chapter 101 of the Public Laws reads as follows: ""No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon any way in this state unless licensed under the provisions of this title, or permit such a vehicle owned or controlled by him to be so operated by a person not so licensed, except as otherwise herein provided. "" By the act of 1937, an amendment was added to this section which provides as follows: ""If any person shall operate such a motor vehicle in violation of this section such violation in any civil action shall be prima facie evidence of his unfitness to operate a motor vehicle. "" The above statute, as it existed before the amendment, was considered in Johnson v. Railroad, 83 N.H. 350, and it was there held that an unlicensed driver was barred from recovery for injuries sustained by him upon a highway, since the act of driving without a license was specifically forbidden by the statute and was causal as a matter of law of any injury thereby sustained. In the Mandell case we had occasion to consider the effect of the amendment of 1937, and held that it changed the basis of liability in such cases. Liability was found to depend no longer on the violation of a statutory rule of conduct (driving without a license), but upon fitness to drive, which was left as a matter for factual determination in each case. In that opinion (p. 3) we noted the fact that ""it is a matter of common knowledge that the rule in the Johnson case has been freely criticised as unduly harsh and unrealistic. It is fairly to be thought that the amendment of 1937 was adopted with this criticism in mind.""