Adamcik v. Knight, 9302.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 9302.,9302. |
| Citation | 170 S.W.2d 521 |
| Parties | ADAMCIK v. KNIGHT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Fayette County Court; E. A. Arnim, Jr., Judge.
Action by George E. Adamcik against Joe Knight for damages to plaintiff's automobile resulting from a collision between the automobile and a horse belonging to defendant. From a judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Moss & Moss, of LaGrange, for appellant.
C. C. Jopling, of LaGrange, for appellee.
Adamcik sued Knight for damages to an automobile resulting from a collision between the automobile and a horse belonging to Knight allegedly roaming at large unattended, on a fenced designated state highway in violation of Art. 1370a, Vernon's Ann.P.C., which provides: "Any person owning or having control of any horse * * * who permits the same to traverse or roam at large, unattended, on the right-of-way of any designated State Highway in this State where the same is enclosed by fences on both sides shall be guilty of a misdemeanor * * *."
The trial was to a jury. At the close of plaintiff's evidence the court granted defendant's motion for judgment predicated upon the specific ground that plaintiff had failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that defendant "permitted" the horse "to run or roam at large upon a state designated highway that is fenced on both sides" and "failed to submit any proof that" the horse "was under the control of Joe Knight or that he knew or had any knowledge of the fact that" the horse "was on said highway." The correctness of sustaining this motion and rendering judgment accordingly constitutes the sole basis of the appeal.
It is not necessary to detail the evidence since its sufficiency to present a prima facie case of liability against Knight is challenged only in the respect set forth in the above ground of the motion. The evidence upon this issue went no further than to show that Knight was owner of the horse. Knight's contention in this regard is that the burden rested upon plaintiff to show by evidence direct or circumstantial that Knight "permitted" the horse to roam at large and unattended upon the highway, that is that the horse was under his custody and control (not that of another through lease, loan, bailment or otherwise) and that its presence upon the highway was due to some dereliction of duty on Knight's part. Knight cites no authority in support of this contention. Those cited by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Massey, 3632
...or similar circumstances, would have exercised in maintaining his fences and gates on January 19, 1958?' relying on Adamcik v. Knight, Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 521, 522, no writ, holding that in an action based on violation of Vernon's Ann.P.C. art. 1370a, proof of ownership raises prima fa......
-
Hinkle v. Siltamaki, 2948
...on the highway was not prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the owner. A typical holding of the minority is Adamcik v. Knight, Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W.2d 521, 3 where the court held that proof of ownership of an animal on the highway raises a prima facie presumption of negligence......
-
Ramey v. Richardson
...the animal to roam at large or that the defendant had any knowledge of the fact the animal was on the highway. Adamcik v. Knight (Tex.Civ.App.), 170 S.W.2d 521. That case also held that the proof of ownership of such an animal raises a prima facie presumption of negligence and shifts the bu......
-
Weddle v. Hudgins
...on a highway in violation of a statute and that such act was a proximate cause of the collision. 7 T.J.2d, sec. 183, page 532; Admamcik v. Knight, 170 S.W.2d 521 (Tex.Civ.App., Austin, 1943, n.w.h.); Dorman v. Cook, 262 S.W.2d 744 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont, 1953, writ dism.); Green v. Evans, ......