Buchholz v. Shapiro
| Decision Date | 27 May 1975 |
| Citation | 48 A.D.2d 694,368 N.Y.S.2d 46 |
| Parties | Jeanne D. BUCHHOLZ et al., Respondents, v. Harmon SHAPIRO et al., Defendants, and Robert J. Botta, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Wynne, Sparacio, Capriano & Trentalange, New York City (Joseph D. Sparacio, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Hurley, Fox & Selig, Stony Point (Harry A. Fox, Stony Point, of counsel), for respondents.
Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J., and LATHAM, CHRIST, BRENNAN and SHAPIRO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., in which a jury verdict was returned in favor of plaintiffs against defendant Botta on the issue of liability only, after trial on that issue, defendant Botta appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered July 9, 1974, which denied said defendant's motion (a) to set aside the verdict and (b) for judgment in his favor or for a new trial, and (2) an interlocutory judgment of the same court dated August 15, 1974, which directed that trial on the issue of damages proceed.
Order reversed, and interlocutory judgment reversed as to defendant Botta, on the law, with costs, verdict against defendant Botta set aside and complaint dismissed as against said defendant.
In June, 1969 appellant purchased a Welsh pony from defendant Shapiro and stabled it at the farm of defendant Car-Har Stud Farms, Inc., a corporation which was wholly owned by Shapiro and his wife. Occasionally defendant Nancy Jarrett, who was 12 years of age, rode the pony. During the 1969--1970 Christmas and New Year holidays appellant and his family went on a Caribbean vacation. While they were away the pony was ridden by Nancy, but apparently without appellant's permission. During one such ride in an indoor equestrian ring located at those stables the pony came in contact with plaintiff Jeanne Buchholz and caused the injuries for which she and her former spouse seek recovery. Mrs. Buchholz was an experienced horsewoman who was in the ring for the purpose of schooling ponies for an upcoming horse show.
A horse is a domesticated animal (Agriculture and Markets Law, § 107). The rule which governs the liability of the owner of a domestic animal for personal injury caused by it is well settled. The owner is not responsible for such injury unless it appears that the animal had the pre-existing vicious propensity to do the particular injurious act complained of and it further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groh v. Hasencamp, 81-41
...Ewing v. Prince, 425 S.W.2d 732 (Ky.1968); Finneran v. Wood, 249 Md. 643, 241 A.2d 579 (1968) and cases cited; Buchholz v. Shapiro, 48 A.D.2d 694, 368 N.Y.S.2d 46 (App.Div.1975). See generally, Annot. 85 A.L.R.2d 1161, 1163 Horses are domestic animals and presumed not to be vicious or dange......
-
Wheaton v. Guthrie
...of Kuro's prior conduct, and thus, his vicious propensity (DiGrazia v. Castronova, 48 A.D.2d 249, 368 N.Y.S.2d 898; Buchholz v. Shapiro, 48 A.D.2d 694, 368 N.Y.S.2d 46; Scharf v. Manson, 27 A.D.2d 613, 275 N.Y.S.2d 629). The most critical element was the requirement that the dog's known vic......
-
Zboray v. Fessler
...propensity to do the particular injurious act complained of" and whether the defendant had prior knowledge thereof (Buchholz v. Shapiro, 48 A.D.2d 694, 695, 368 N.Y.S.2d 46; see also, Mirabella v. Thiem, 306 N.Y. 650, 116 N.E.2d 492; Brophy v. Columbia County Agric. Socy., 116 A.D.2d 873, 4......
-
Loeffler v. Rogers
...owner had knowledge of or reason to know of that propensity ( see, Russell v. Lepre, 99 A.D.2d 489, 470 N.Y.S.2d 430; Buchholz v. Shapiro, 48 A.D.2d 694, 368 N.Y.S.2d 46; see also, Arbegast v. Board of Educ. of S. New Berlin Cent. School, 65 N.Y.2d 161, 164, 490 N.Y.S.2d 751, 480 N.E.2d 365......