John Richard Goodnow

The case involved an employee who suffered two successive work-related injuries while employed by different companies, both of which contributed to his permanent partial disability, raising the question of whether compensation under New Hampshire's workers' compensation law should be paid entirely by the second employer or apportioned between them. The court decided that liability must be apportioned according to the extent each injury contributed to the disability, rather than placing full responsibility on the last employer, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the proper allocation and to consider an award based on loss of earning capacity. The core reasoning was that the statute holds each employer responsible only for disability arising out of and in the course of its own employment, so compensation must reflect each employer's proportionate statutory liability without arbitrary equal division or full shifting to one party; the court also noted that earning capacity after injury requires judicial assessment based on evidence and general knowledge rather than solely on medical findings or actual wages.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case Hull v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company concerned whether an insured could recover under a fire insurance policy for windstorm damage when notice of loss was not provided within thirty days of the loss's occurrence, but rather after its discovery, due to the premises being vacant. The court held that the policy requires notice within thirty days from the date the loss occurs, not from discovery, and the vacancy waiver does not alter the notice timing. However, because the policy permitted extended vacancy, the insured may be excused from strict compliance if he was justifiably ignorant of the loss and exercised reasonable care to discover it, making the determination of timely notice a factual question. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for that factual determination.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a New Hampshire action by plaintiff Lillian M. Sampson, Trustee, to enforce a final decree rendered by a Massachusetts court against defendant Arthur J. Conlon. The New Hampshire court held that an authenticated copy of the Massachusetts judgment was admissible without further proof of its nature or the identity of the parties, and that this evidence alone was sufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for nonsuit. The court reasoned that the clerk's certification established admissibility, matching names, titles, and service addresses created a presumption of party identity, and a valid judgment is presumed to remain unsatisfied until the defendant affirmatively proves payment. Judgment was entered on the verdict for the plaintiff.

procedure

This case concerned the validity of a will's reference to a list of personal property bequests and the interpretation of its residuary clause distributing the estate to heirs. The court held that a list prepared after the will's execution but before a codicil was not incorporated by reference into the will, because the will referred to a list the testatrix "shall leave" in the future, which did not sufficiently describe an existing document. Regarding the residue, the court decided that the testatrix intended for New Hampshire statutes to determine her heirs as well as her husband's, excluding those beyond the fourth degree of relationship, and that the heirs were to be identified at the time the residue was ready for distribution rather than at the testatrix's death.

property

This case concerned whether a defendant's prior conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence under a 1950 statute could be treated as a second conviction under the amended 1955 version of the law, which provided for different penalties. The court held that the prior conviction qualified, allowing the defendant to be charged as a repeat offender. The reasoning was that the 1955 amendment did not repeal the original statute but merely altered its penalty provisions through legislative drafting, as the description of the offense remained identical and the intent was to impose heavier penalties on repeat offenders to deter dangerous driving. The court also confirmed that a nolo contendere plea followed by sentencing constitutes a conviction under the statute.

criminal law

This case concerned whether the plaintiffs could pursue tort claims for personal injuries from a 1953 car accident against the estate of the deceased driver, despite failing to properly exhibit their demands to the administratrix within the one-year period required by RSA 556:3. The plaintiffs had filed initial actions in common counts but did not make a sufficient demand or communicate directly with the estate's representative; instead, they relied on assurances from the insurer's agent that the claims would be settled after recovery. The superior court granted relief under RSA 556:28, finding no culpable neglect and permitting the actions to proceed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that the insurer's conduct provided a reasonable basis for the delay under standards of ordinary conduct, that the petition could be amended, and that the statutory purpose of orderly estate settlement was satisfied where insurance would cover any judgment.

proceduretorts & liability