Dailey v. Lawson, 954

• Citation: 119 A.2d 684,119 Vt. 82
• Decision Date: 03 January 1956
• Docket Number: No. 954,954
• Parties: Selah DAILEY v. Winston LAWSON.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

Page 684

119 A.2d 684

119 Vt. 82

Selah DAILEY v. Winston LAWSON.

No. 954.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Jan. 3, 1956.

Raymond L. Miles, Newport, for plaintiff.

Pierce & Drown, Newport, for defendant.

Before JEFFORDS, C. J., and CLEARY, ADAMS, CHASE and HULBURD, JJ.

JEFFORDS, Chief Justice.

This is an action of tort in which the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment below and the case is here on the defendant's exceptions.

The material allegations in the plaintiff's complaint are, in substance, that when he was operating his automobile on a certain highway in the night time it was in collision with a horse owned by the defendant which was loose and unattended on the highway due to the negligent and unlawful acts and omission of the defendant. That it was the duty of the defendant to have the horse under his control and not a large in the highway and that the defendant knew and ought to have known that the horse was at large in the highway and that unless kept from the highway the horse was likely to cause damage and injury to persons and property.

The plaintiff moved to amend his complaint by inserting therein 'That the defendant permitted said horse to run at large in said highway without the consent of the City Council of the City of Newport.' Although it is not clearly shown, we will assume that this amendment was allowed. The purpose of the amendment was to bring the case within the provisions of V.S. 47, § 7577. This section reads as follows: 'A person who knowingly permits cattle, horses, sheep or swine to run at large in a public highway, or yard belonging to a public building, without the consent of the selectmen, shall be fined not more than $10.00 nor less than $3.00.'

At the close of all of the evidence the defendant moved that a verdict be directed in his favor. One ground of the motion was that there is no evidence in the case showing that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the horse was in the highway. The court denied this motion and allowed an exception to the defendant to its action.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff the jury reasonably could have found the following facts: 'The horse in question and another owned by the defendant and some cattle owned by him had been in a pasture for some time previous to the time of the accident. This pasture was bordered on one side by State route 105 and on another by the highway known as the Alder Brook road. Between each road and the pasture there was a wire fence. The accident happened in the early evening of July 22, 1953, near the intersection of the two roads. The wires in the fence along the main road were slack, loose, and in some places crossed and fastened together. It was described by the plaintiff as a very poor fence. Another witness said he would not call it a good fence. The horse had escaped from the pasture and was in the highway to the knowledge of the defendant five or six weeks before the date of the accident. The defendant put the horse back in the pasture and this was the only time the defendant knew it had escaped from the pasture prior to the time of the accident. A witness testified that he had found the horse out of the pasture twice before during the summer of 1953 but that he could not remember he had told the defendant about it.

The defendant testified that when he put the horse back in the...