Baker v. Ratkiewicz
| Decision Date | 03 April 1931 |
| Citation | 175 N.E. 635,275 Mass. 174 |
| Parties | BAKER v. RATKIEWICZ et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; Henry T. Lummus, Judge.
Action by Harold Baker, by next friend, against Bogumila Ratkiewicz and another. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendants bring exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.John D. Ross, of Holyoke, for plaintiff.
Richard P. Stapleton, of Holyoke, Thomas H. Stapleton, of Springfield, and William M. Long, of Holyoke, for defendants.
The plaintiff, a minor, while walking through his father's cornfield startled a horse which was wrongfully in the field. The horse had been hobbled by putting a rope around its forelegs so that it could not take a step longer than six inches. It reared, swung around, struck the plaintiff with its fore hooves, and injured him. There was evidence that it was used by both defendants in the business of their farm; that many times, on complaint that it was trespassing, one or the other had driven it out of the father's premises; that each of them had referred to it, or had raised no question when it was referred to, as ‘his' or ‘her’ horse; that one or the other had frequently been seen to turn it out hobbled to pasture; that Mrs. Ratkiewicz had promised once to see about damage which it had done and her husband had attended to the repairs. There was thus evidence for a jury of joint ownership or a joint keeping by the defendants, although they testified that the horse belonged to a minor son who cared for, looked after it, and used it in his occupation. Maillet v. Mininno, 266 Mass. 86, 165 N. E. 15. It was for the jury, not for the judge, to draw the inferences from the testimony, unless, as matter of law, only inferences favorable to the defendants and decisive in their favor were permissible.
There was abundant evidence that the horse was permitted to wander about in its hobbled state. An expert veterinary surgeon testified that, if startled, a hobbled horse would ‘flare up’ and might do many things, owing to its inability to run; that not having freedom of movement, and, thus, unable to control itself, it might rear awkwardly, fall over, and be a source of danger to anyone. This would support a finding of negligence in permitting any horse so shackled to get upon the premises of others. Viciousness of the horse is not involved. Any well-behaved animal might reasonably be expected to act, if hobbled, as this one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saldi v. Brighton Stock Yard Co.
...Lyons v. Merrick, 105 Mass. 71, 76; Walker v. Nickerson, 291 Mass. 522, 525, 197 N.E. 451, or by another, Baker v. Ratkiewicz, 275 Mass. 174, 179-180, 175 N.E. 635. 2 It is unnecessary to show that the animal had vicious traits. Lyons v. Merrick, supra. Walker v. Nickerson, supra. Action by......
-
Walker v. Nickerson
...would entitle her to recover compensation for such personal injuries. We do not imply the contrary. The case is unlike Baker v. Ratkiewicz, 275 Mass. 174, 175 N.E. 635, where the injured plaintiff was not the owner of the land which the trespass was committed. See, also, Fraser v. Chapman, ......
-
Siira v. Shields
...Boylan v. Everett, 172 Mass. 453, 457--458, 52 N.E. 541; Maillet v. Mininno, 266 Mass. 86, 89, 165 N.E. 15. See also Baker v. Ratkiewicz, 275 Mass. 174, 179, 175 N.E. 635; Leone v. Falco, 292 Mass. 299, 300--305, 198 N.E. 273. Since she could be found not to be the 'keeper,' there is now no......
- Clifford v. Sch. Comm. of Lynn