Coakley v. Dairy Cattle Congress

• Decision Date: 06 August 1940
• Docket Number: 45092.
• Citation: 293 N.W. 457,228 Iowa 1130
• Parties: COAKLEY v. DAIRY CATTLE CONGRESS et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

293 N.W. 457

228 Iowa 1130

COAKLEY v. DAIRY CATTLE CONGRESS et al.

No. 45092.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

August 6, 1940

Appeal from District Court, Black Hawk County; A. B. Lovejoy, Judge.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries. From judgment on a verdict in plaintiff's favor, defendants appeal. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Reversed.

MITCHELL and OLIVER, JJ., dissenting.

Persons conducting an exposition to which the general public is invited must see that the exposition is kept reasonably safe.

Carl F. Jordan, of Cedar Rapids, Dean Peisen, of Eldora, and George D. Harris, of Waterloo, for appellants.

Butterfield & Butterfield and McCoy & Beecher, all of Waterloo, for appellee.

SAGER Justice.

On September 30, 1937, plaintiff, with four others, attended an exposition then in progress on the grounds of the corporate defendant which, for convenience, will be hereafter referred to as the " congress" . This was an annual event much like a county fair though much larger. It provided the usual exhibition and amusement features with concessions of various kinds, calculated to suit the varied tastes of the large number of people who were induced to attend. Plaintiff paid an admission fee. She thereby became entitled to the protection to which visitors to enterprises of this sort are entitled.

On the day of the accident plaintiff with her companions had passed through barn No. 1 which housed an exhibition of Belgian horses. They proceeded to the west entrance of barn No. 2 likewise devoted to the showing of this breed. Plaintiff's group seems to have been the only patrons in the barn at that time. The horses of defendant Reece were stabled on the right or south side of the barn. As they entered grooms were engaged in harnessing a pair of horses in adjacent stalls. One teammate was harnessed before the other and was led to the west entrance. The other named Jerry, sensing the going of his team-mate, backed up when his halter was removed. The groom at the moment stood at Jerry's head with the bridle on his arm expecting to slip it on when the halter came off. The movement of the horse was too sudden to make this possible and the animal trotted to the end of the barn where his mate stood. At this time a volunteer grabbed the horse around the neck. This, with the waving of arms and shouting of those near the door, frightened the animal, which turned and ran back in the direction plaintiff and party was proceeding. Before coming to the place where plaintiff was, Jerry entered a vacant stall. The tumult and the clatter of horses hoofs frightened plaintiff and she sought to avoid injury. Just what took place is uncertain. She tells the happenings at the instant of her hurt in this way:

" The first I saw of the horse was when he was coming toward us. I tried to get out of the way. I couldn't say how far I traveled. I looked both ways to see whether there was a place I could step in and I couldn't see any empty stall and I was afraid to step beside the horses. I didn't run. I couldn't say I moved. I didn't turn around and fall in my tracks. I just don't know whether I went forward some. I just can't explain it to you what a feeling it was. I couldn't say whether I went to the east or the west, but I looked for a place, and I suppose I must have looked around to see where I could step in. I suppose I fell and hurt myself; I was trying to get away."

A large part of the argument is devoted to the question whether the defendant corporation was liable for the acts of its co-defendant Reece either under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or on the theory that he was an independent contractor. In this connection is discussed the question as to how far a fair, exhibition, exposition or amusement enterprise is liable for the negligence of its exhibitors and concessionaires. Related to these contentions is appellee's insistence that the congress, by retaining supervisory rights over its exhibitors, became liable for their negligence. We do not discuss these questions for the reason that for the purposes of this opinion, we assume that the congress was liable for any carelessness on the part of its co-defendant. We regard the retention of the right to supervise exhibitors as of no importance because it went no further than is required by law of persons so engaged to see that the exposition to which it had invited the general public is kept reasonably safe.

Contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff is excluded and will have no attention. The inquiry then remains-what was the negligence of the defendants? The record is void of any showing of defect in the construction or arrangement of the barn in which plaintiff fell; neither the width or depth of the stalls nor the character of the passageway between the stalls is shown to be improper. Its general condition is described in this way: " The width of the aisle and the distance between stallends, and so forth, as compared to the International Livestock Show in Chicago, the Dairy Cattle Congress, the aisle-width is considerably greater; and I think it is about equal to the aisle-width at the National Dairy Show and at the other fairs that I have mentioned."

There was no defect in the floor and no obstruction or obstacle which caused plaintiff to fall. The corporate defendant met its obligation to provide a reasonably safe place for its visitors. What then of the negligence of Reece or his servants? Jerry was seven years old and had been exhibited for three years at the Illinois State Fair, the Iowa State Fair, the fair at Marshalltown, and at the congress. He was thus described by those who were familiar with and had handled him-" a gentle, docile animal" ." He is a very gentle horse, well-trained and never had any difficulty with him whatsoever in my (the groom's) experience." And this, " Q. What was the nature of this horse? A. Well, I wouldn't want him much gentler." What then was the nature of Jerry's offending or where the negligence of his keepers? There was nothing vicious, unruly or otherwise objectionable about the animal. He was accustomed to exhibition, and with his mate Colonel, as a part of a six horse hitch, had entertained crowds at fairs for several years. He was well broken and had been worked in the field.

On the morning of the accident one horse of the team being harnessed, was led to the barn to await Jerry's coming. The groom with the bridle on his arm slipped off the halter and before the bridle could be placed, Jerry trotted down to join his mate at the west door for the morning's exercise. This was something he had never done before. Had volunteers not assumed to direct his movements or to stop his course, the groom could have followed him and in a moment put the bridle on. But the racket frightened the horse and he turned and ran into a vacant stall. At no time was he nearer to the plaintiff than ten or fifteen feet. Counsel for appellee, with accustomed skill, have so vividly colored the actions of the animal that but little imagination is required to visualize this docile and well-trained animal emitting fire and smoke; but our narration is an account of the important facts.

The parties have presented for our consideration a very large number of authorities. They have been examined but none discovers any principle upon which...