Corliss v. Keown

• Decision Date: 02 December 1910
• Citation: 93 N.E. 143,207 Mass. 149
• Parties: CORLISS v. KEOWN et al. (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

207 Mass. 149

93 N.E. 143

CORLISS v. KEOWN et al. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Essex.

December 2, 1910

COUNSEL

F. E. Shaw, for plaintiffs.

W. W Pyne, for defendants.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The first of these actions is by a woman to recover for injuries from being struck by a runaway horse while crossing a public street in the city of Lynn, and the second is by her husband to recover damages resulting to him from her injury. The two defendants are a physician and his mother, who live in the same house, and were both interested in a hospital maintained by a corporation of which the son was the president and the mother was the treasurer. The horse and carriage by which the plaintiff was injured belonged to the son, and were being used by the mother on the day of the injury. They were in charge of a driver hired by the son. The plaintiff contended that the accident was caused in part by the defective condition of the carriage and in part by the bad behavior and dangerous proclivities of the horse. The case was tried before the chief justice of the superior court without a jury and he found against the defendant James A. Keown, and in favor of the other defendants.

The weight of the evidence and the findings of the judge indicate that, on the morning of the accident, Dr. Keown lent his horse and carriage and driver to his mother, to be used for a short time in business of which she had official charge, and that in her official capacity she was the proprietor and manager of the business in which the horse and carriage were then being used. He found expressly that 'she had the authority to direct the driver where to go and by what streets, and at what rate of speed.' In legal effect it seems to have been an ordinary case of the owner of a horse and carriage lending them, with his driver, to another person, to be used by that person in his business. In such a case it is held that, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, the care and management of the horse is retained by the owner through his driver, who for that purpose and in that part of the business remains his servant. Shepard v. Jacobs, 204 Mass. 110-112, 90 N.E. 392, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 442; Delory v. Boldgett, 185 Mass. 126-129, 69 N.E. 1078, 64 L. R. A. 114, 102 Am. St. Rep. 328. But in such a case the ownership of the business in which the horse is used an the responsibility for conducting such a business rest with the person to whom the horse and driver are lent. If the is personally negligent through conducting the business in a careless way, whether by the use of instrumentalities, known to him to be dangerous, or otherwise, he is liable for the results of his negligence. He would have no right to accept and use in his business a horse, or anything else, that, by reason of its dangerous proclivities or qualities, would expose others to the probability of injury.

The plaintiff asked for the following ruling: 'If the court shall find that the horse or mare used by the defendant Annie Keown at the time of the accident was an unsafe and dangerous animal for the use to which it was being put by the defendant Annie Keown at said time, and the said Annie Keown, or her servants, agents or employés knew it, or...