Opinion
Decided May 6, 1919.
The questions raised by exceptions to the denial of motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict are whether on the evidence any verdict could be found for the plaintiff. An exception to the refusal of the court to set aside a verdict as against the law and the evidence presents no question of law for the supreme court.
CASE, for negligence to recover damages for personal injuries. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff's evidence tended to prove that she scratched her finger on a wire protruding about half an inch from the side of the machine she was operating; that general infection of her body resulted from the accident; and that she has experienced very serious ailments by reason thereof. The defendants' motions for a nonsuit and directed verdict, and that the verdict be set aside as against the law and the evidence, were denied subject to the defendants' exceptions. Exceptions were also taken by the defendants to the admission and rejection of testimony. Transferred from the May term, 1918, of the superior court by Kivel, C.J.
Henri A. Burque, Wason Moran and Martin Howe (Mr. Howe orally), for the plaintiff.
Doyle Lucier and Albert Terrien (Mr. Lucier orally), for the defendants.
This is the same case reported in 78 N.H. 614. There it was decided on the plaintiff's exception to a nonsuit, that the defendants might be held liable for the plaintiff's injury. The defendants in support of their motions, now being considered, for a nonsuit and directed verdict, have not contended that they might not be found liable on the evidence for the plaintiff's injury resulting from the accident. The sole claim now appears to be that the damages for which compensation is sought by the plaintiff, are too remote and speculative to be attributed to the accident suffered by her. The question raised by the motions, however, is not whether the verdict returned could be found, but is whether on the evidence any verdict could be found for the plaintiff. The plaintiff received an injury while working upon the defendants' machine. It being conceded that the defendants might be held liable for the accident, a verdict could be rendered for the plaintiff. The exception to the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict as being against the law and the evidence presents no question of law. Lyman v. Brown, 73 N.H. 411; Lally v. Insurance Co., 75 N.H. 188, 190.
Exceptions to the admission and rejection of testimony have not been argued by brief or orally, and are understood to be waived.
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred.