## Facts

- Mrs. Guevin approached an electric streetcar to board while carrying her young child.
- The car’s rear fender projected unusually far into the street, rather than being in its customary retracted position.
- Mrs. Guevin tripped over the projecting fender and was injured.
- Evidence indicated rear fenders were ordinarily pushed in so travelers passing the rear of a car would not expect an obstruction.
- Mrs. Guevin previously sued for her personal injuries and the defendant obtained a verdict.
- Mr. Guevin later sued for loss of his wife’s services and society; the jury returned a verdict for him.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence permitted a finding that the railway was negligent in leaving the rear fender projecting as an unusual street obstruction for persons approaching to board.
2. Whether Mrs. Guevin was contributorily negligent as a matter of law in failing to see and avoid the projecting fender while carrying her child.
3. Whether the husband’s action for loss of consortium and related harms was independent, and whether the wife’s earlier adverse judgment barred or limited his claim.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Mr. Guevin.
- The jury could find the railway negligent because the projecting rear fender was an unusual obstruction not ordinarily expected by travelers.
- Mrs. Guevin’s contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law; the issue was properly left to the jury.
- The husband’s claim was treated as an action for loss of consortium (society and companionship), not merely for loss of services.
- The prior defense verdict in the wife’s personal-injury case did not automatically preclude the husband’s consortium action.

## Legal Principles

- A carrier may be liable for creating or maintaining an unusual, non-obvious obstruction in areas where passengers and prospective passengers may reasonably be expected to walk.
- Customary practice bearing on what hazards a reasonable person would anticipate can support a finding of negligence when the practice is not followed.
- Contributory negligence is generally a jury question unless the plaintiff’s lack of due care is so clear that reasonable jurors could not differ.
- A spouse’s claim for loss of consortium is grounded in the marital interest in society and companionship (per quod consortium amisit), not solely in economic services.
- An adverse judgment in the injured spouse’s separate action does not, by itself, bar the other spouse’s consortium claim arising from the same occurrence.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a husband’s recovery for loss of consortium where a jury could find that a street railway negligently left a rear fender projecting as an unexpected obstruction, the injured wife’s due care remained a jury question, and the wife’s earlier unsuccessful personal-injury suit did not automatically defeat the husband’s independent claim.


Guevin v. Manchester St. Ry., 78 N.H. 289, 99 A. 298 (1916)