Griggs v. Fleckenstein

• Decision Date: 01 January 1869
• Citation: 14 Minn. 62
• Parties: JOHN W. GRIGGS v. ERNST FLECKENSTEIN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 62

14 Minn. 62

JOHN W. GRIGGS

v. ERNST FLECKENSTEIN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court, Rice county.

Perkins & Mott, for appellant, cited:

Gordon E. Cole, for respondent, cited:

McMILLAN, J.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for the loss of a horse, which was killed under the following circumstances:

The defendant left his team, consisting of a span of horses and a double sleigh attached thereto, standing in the principal business street of the town of Faribault without being hitched, fastened, held, or in any manner secured. It started and ran violently along the street, and against another team belonging to one Matthews, likewise consisting of two horses attached to a double sleigh standing properly hitched at the side of the street, frightening the latter team so that it broke loose and ran with the sleigh attached to it across the street and against a horse and sleigh belonging to the plaintiff, breaking the plaintiff's sleigh and injuring his horse so that he died in two or three days thereafter.

There is evidence tending to show that before the defendant's horses ran into Matthews' team, and while they were running down the street, a crowd of persons came out into the street and hallooed and raised their hats for the purpose of stopping the horses; that this occasioned the horses to swerve from the course they were taking, and drove them across the street so that they hit Matthews' team.

The plaintiff's horse at the time of the injury was unhitched and at the side of the street. The plaintiff's son, who had driven his father's horse to this place, left him unhitched and went into a store near by. He testified upon the trial that while in the store he heard the first runaway team (defendant's) as it passed, and went out on the sidewalk, and was on the sidewalk, about eight feet from his horse, when it was injured. Then he saw a pair of horses with sleigh running down the street. They started his father's horse, which was standing near the sidewalk in the street a few feet from the place he had left him. That he spoke to the horse and he stopped, and immediately the pole of the other double sleigh struck his horse. There is testimony on the part of the defendant tending to show that when the first runaway team passed it started the plaintiff's horse; that he turned and moved towards the street; and that if plaintiff's horse had not stirred, the second team would have passed without hitting him.

Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff being upon the stand as a witness on his own behalf, the plaintiff's counsel asked the witness the following question: "Was the horse trustworthy to stand unhitched in the street?" Objected to by defendant's counsel, on the ground that it was immaterial. The objection was sustained by the court, and the question excluded, to which the plaintiff excepted.

Several exceptions were taken by the plaintiff to the refusal of the court to charge in accordance with requests submitted by him, and to the charge of the court in accordance with requests submitted by the defendant, which we need not consider in detail.

The case involves, substantially, three points: (1) The effect upon the rights of the parties to this action of the conduct of the persons or crowd in hallooing and waving their hats in front of the runaway team of defendant in order to stop it; (2) the effect upon the plaintiff's right to recover, of the fact that the horse had been left unhitched in the street; (3) the admissibility of the evidence sought to be elicited by the question put to the plaintiff as a witness.

The rule of law is well settled that where the plaintiff has been injured in his person or property by the wrongful act or omission of the defendant, or through his culpable negligence, the fact that a third party, by his wrong or negligence, contributed to the injury, does not relieve the defendant from liability. McMahon v. Davidson, 12 Minn. 372-3, (Gil. 232.)

There is no controversy about the fact that the running away of the defendant's team was attributable to and occurred at first through the negligence of the defendant. The team had not stopped, or been at all restrained in their flight, at the time of the appearance of the persons or crowd in the street. The attempt to stop the team was not successful, but, as we have seen, may have swerved the horses from the direct course in which they were going and...