Huntoon v. Trumbull

• Decision Date: 01 October 1880
• Citation: 12 F. 844
• Parties: HUNTOON and others v. TRUMBULL and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

12 F. 844

HUNTOON and others v. TRUMBULL and others.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division.

October, 1880

KREKEL D.J., (charging jury.)

The evidence in this case shows that the firm of Trumbull Reynolds & Allen were on the fourth day of July, 1879 trading in agricultural machinery, having their place of business on the east side of Walnut, between Fourth and Fifth streets, in Kansas City; that for a number of years, in the course of their business, they had placed and kept standing on the opposite side of the street from their stores a number of machines, among them separators and a traction-engine that on said fourth day of July they took out a traction-engine from Kansas City to the fair grounds for exhibition. When the engine was taken back in the early part of the afternoon of the 4th, it was left on the opposite side of the street from their store, in a gutter or ditch designating the limit of the street; the evidence showing the place and manner in which it was left. Huntoon and wife, (the plaintiffs,) residents of Wyandotte, Kansas, on the said fourth of July came with their family of Kansas City; Mr Huntoon, wife, and child riding in a buggy, and the two boys in a street car. While going up Main street they saw the traction-engine on,walnut street. After going up Main street they crossed over to Walnut, passed up Walnut some distance, turned and came back or down Walnut street, one of the boys walking, while the other two children were with their father and mother riding in the buggy. They thus proceeded down Walnut street, and somewhere near Fifth or south of Fifth the horse ran away, upset the buggy, and threw out the occupants, and it is claimed Mrs. Huntoon was permanently injured by the fall. The first and most important question you are called upon to decide, under the state of facts in evidence, is, was this act of defendants, in placing the separators and the engine in the condition the evidence shows the same to have been, a wrongful and negligent act, and whether in consequence of this claimed wrong and neglect the injury complained of resulted to plaintiff? If the act of the defendants was not wrongful and negligent, the defendants are not liable. But not only must the act of leaving the machinery as shown by the evidence be wrongful and negligent, but such wrong and neglect must have been the cause of the injury complained of. If the injury to plaintiff was not caused by the wrongful and negligent acts of defendants, plaintiff cannot recover in this action. In order to arrive at a proper conclusion as to whether the leaving of the separators and the engine as they were left, were...