La Duke v. Exeter Tp.

• Citation: 56 N.W. 851,97 Mich. 450
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 10 November 1893
• Parties: LA DUKE v. TOWNSHIP OF EXETER.

56 N.W. 851

97 Mich. 450

LA DUKE v. TOWNSHIP OF EXETER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 10, 1893

Error to circuit court, Monroe county; Edward D. Kinne, Judge.

Action by Toussaint La Duke against the township of Exeter for injuries to himself and horse from a defective bridge. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

C. A. Golden and George M. Landon, for appellant.

I. R Grosvenor, for appellee.

HOOKER C.J.

One of the plaintiff's horses caught his hind foot in a hole in defendant's bridge, and, while struggling to free itself, got the other hind foot in also and fell upon its knees. The plaintiff sent his wife for help, and attempted to hold the horses, until assistance should arrive, to prevent injury to the imprisoned horse, by his struggles, or by his mate. While so engaged plaintiff was injured by the struggles of the horse. It is contended by defendant's counsel that the negligence of the township in failing to keep its bridge in repair was not the proximate cause of the injury. We think otherwise, as was held in two cases cited by counsel, on all fours with this. Page v Bucksport, 64 Me. 51; Stickney v. Maidstone, 30 Vt. 738.

Error is assigned upon the admission of testimony and the charge, which is said to have allowed the jury to give damages for a permanent injury to the horse. There was testimony showing that the horse was injured to the extent of $30, but we find no exception in the record. The declaration alleged: "By means whereof, also, the said horse was greatly injured and damaged, and became sick, bruised, lame, and injured, and so remained for a long space of time, to wit, for the space of two months thence hitherto, during which time said plaintiff was put to great cost and expense in taking proper care of, and in purchasing medicines in a large sum of money, to wit, fifty dollars, and was deprived of the use of said horse for all that time, to wit, two months, to the loss and damage of said plaintiff in the sum of twenty-five dollars." This expressly says that the horse was greatly injured and damaged. This would have permitted the recovery of damages for the permanent injury to the horse, as well as for the value of his services while disabled.

The testimony showed that plaintiff was injured in his arm and shoulder by the struggles of the horse. The third count of the declaration contains the following language: "Was injured by the struggling of said horse to get out as aforesaid, by means of which he became bruised, sick lame,...