Cooper v. Bros

• Decision Date: 20 January 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 5152.)
• Parties: COOPER v. LAYSON BROS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

80 S.E. 666

14 Ga.App. 134

COOPER

v.LAYSON BROS.

(No. 5152.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Jan. 20, 1914.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Livery Stable Keepers (§ 11*)—Hiring of Animals—Care Required.

Livery stable keepers who let animals for hire are bound only to exercise ordinary care and diligence in providing an animal suitable for the purpose for which it is hired.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Livery Stable Keepers, Cent. Dig. § 12; Dec. Dig. § 11.*]

2. Bailment (§ 9*)—Implied Warranty.

In this state a bailor for hire impliedly warrants that the thing bailed is free from any secret fault rendering it unfit for the purpose for which it is intended.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bailment, Dec. Dig. § 9.*]

3. Livery Stable Keepers (§ 11*)—Injuries to Third Persons—Liability.

Where one other than the person to whom an animal is hired is injured by reason of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the animal, the person injured cannot recover from the owner, unless he shows that the owner knew of the dangerous or vicious propensities of the animal, or had reasonable grounds for so knowing, and was wanting in ordinary care for the protection of the public against injury from the exercise of such propensities. Reed v. Southern Express Co., 95 Ga. 108, 22 S. E. 133, 51 Am. St. Rep. 62; Browder-Mansret Company v. Calhoun Brick Co., 138 Ga. 277, 75 S. E. 243; Logan v. Pope, 139 Ga. 589, 77 S. E. 809.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Livery Stable Keepers, Cent. Dig. § 12; Dec. Dig. § 11.*]

4. Livery Stable Keepers (§ 11*)—Injuries to Third Persons—Liability—Burden of Proof.

Where, however, a dangerous or vicious animal is hired to another, and he sues the owner to recover for injuries received on account of the exercise by the animal of dangerous or vicious propensities, proof of scienter is not essential to the plaintiff's recovery. It is only necessary it should appear that the plaintiff's injury resulted from the dangerous or vicious character of the animal, and that the owner was lacking in ordinary care and diligence in furnishing an animal unsuited for the purposes for which it was hired. In such a case there is no presumption of negligence, and the plaintiff must affirmatively prove that the defendant was lacking in ordinary care.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Livery Stable Keepers, Cent Dig. § 12; Dec. Dig. § 11.*]

Error from City Court of Sparta; R. W. Moore, Judge.

Action by R. E. Cooper against Layson Brothers. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

M. R. Lufburrow, of Warrenton, and T. M. Hunt, of Sparta, for plaintiff in error.

R. L. Merritt, of Sparta, for defendants in error.

POTTLE, J. The plaintiff hired a horse and a buggy from the defendant. The buggy and the harness were free from defects. The driver who went with the plaintiff was careful and experienced. Shortly after the journey began, and without any apparent cause, the horse began to kick and run, and as a result the plaintiff either fell or was thrown out of the buggy and was injured. On proof of this the plaintiff rested his case. The defendant contends that, even if the horse was vicious and dangerous, proof of the scienter was necessary to enable the plaintiff to recover. Counsel for the plaintiff insists that...