Petrus v. Company , 75 N.H. 587 ( 1908 )

There was evidence that the defendants either knew or ought to have known of the danger incident to the condition of their premises which caused the plaintiff's injury, in season to have removed the danger or to have warned him of it, and that he neither knew of the danger nor was in fault for not knowing of it. Consequently, the evidence should have been submitted the jury.

Exception sustained.

All concurred.