111 A. 629 | N.H. | 1920
There was evidence from which it could be found that the pole which fell was badly decayed when inspected by Green in the spring before the accident, and that if Green had not been negligent he would have discovered the fact and reported it to the foreman. If this had been done it is reasonable to conclude that more care would have been used by the foreman at the time of the accident, and the injury would have been avoided.
The defendant's position is that the inspection had been turned over to the linemen generally, so that the case comes within the rule laid down in Sanborn v. Railroad,
The defendant's claim that the linemen were to reset the poles "as occasion required" omits the essential fact that their knowledge of occasion for such action was to be obtained from the report of the annual inspection. It was not their duty, as a part of their ordinary work upon the line, to ascertain whether a pole had decayed below the surface of the earth.
The fact that the inspection, when made, was carried on by a lineman does not alter the situation. When acting as inspector he was not performing a part of his everyday task, but a special duty to which he might be assigned from time to time. Twombly v. Company,
The defendant's exception to the denial of its motion for a change of venue presents no substantial question of law. There was ample evidence upon which the motion could be denied as a matter of discretion. Whitcher v. Association,
Exceptions overruled.
WALKER, J., was absent: the others concurred.