O'Brien v. Miller

• Citation: 60 Conn. 214,22 A. 544
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 20 March 1891
• Parties: O'BRIEN v. MILLER et al.

22 A. 544

60 Conn. 214

O'BRIEN

v. MILLER et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 20, 1891.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; Sanford, Judge.

Action for personal injuries by John O'Brien against Frank Miller and another. Plaintiff was nonsuited, and he appeals. Affirmed.

E. F. Cole, for appellant.

D. Davenport, for appellees.

ANDREWS, C.J. The plaintiff brought an action in the superior court for New Haven county against the defendants, demanding damages for being run over and injured by a horse belonging to the defendants. The complaint alleged that the defendants' servant, while engaged in their business, negligently, carelessly, and unskillfully drove a team belonging to them against and over the plaintiff, knocked him down, cut open his scalp, broke his right knee, and otherwise seriously injured him. The defendants in their answer admitted that a horse of theirs, while being driven by their servant in their business, collided with the person of the plaintiff; but they denied that such fact was caused by the fault, negligence, or misconduct of themselves or their servant. The issue was closed to the jury. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, when he had rested, the defendants moved for a nonsuit, which the court granted. The court having refused to set aside the nonsuit on motion of the plaintiff, he brings the case here by appeal.

The evidence offered by the plaintiff tended to show that he was an employe of the Naugatuck Railroad Company, and that on the day he was injured he was engaged in clearing the Bank-Street crossing of that railroad in the city of Waterbury; that while so engaged a horse of the defendants hitched to an empty coal cart dashed upon the crossing just in front of a locomotive engine, which stood there blowing off steam, ran over the plaintiff, pitched him forward several yards to the ground, turned, ran again over the plaintiff and up the track, and could not be stopped till he had reached the defendants stables; that the horse was frequently uncontrollable and unmanageable, and afraid of a locomotive, and that the plaintiff had been obliged to keep out of his way on other occasions; that at the time the horse struck the plaintiff he was running away, and was entirely beyond the control of the driver, who was at that time exerting his utmost skill to prevent the horse doing any injury to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff did not see the horse until the instant he was hit, just as the...