Knust v. Bullock

• Decision Date: 21 June 1910
• Citation: 59 Wash. 141,109 P. 329
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: KNUST v. BULLOCK et al.

109 P. 329

59 Wash. 141

KNUST v. BULLOCK et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 21, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mason Irwin Judge.

Action by Charles Knust against J. W. Bullock and wife and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants Bullock and wife appeal. Affirmed.

Fred H Peterson and Philip D. MacBride, for appellants.

William E. Froude and E. L. Rinehart, for respondent.

MOUNT J.

This action was brought by the respondent to recover damages for the loss of a horse, and for injuries to a wagon and harness caused by another team of horses running away and colliding with the team belonging to the respondent. The cause was tried to the court and a jury. A verdict was returned in favor of the respondent for $245, against appellants, Bullock and wife, the owners of the team which ran away, and against James Harvey, the driver thereof. This appeal is prosecuted by Bullock and wife from a judgment upon the verdict. Defendant Harvey has not appealed.

The complaint alleged, in substance, that the defendant Harvey was employed by the appellants as driver of a team of horses, and that Harvey negligently permitted the team to run away and into the respondent's horses and wagon, causing the injury complained of. The complaint also alleged that the team which ran away was wild, dangerous, and unsafe to be driven upon the public streets except by the most competent driver, and that the appellants were negligent in employing an incompetent driver. The appellants denied generally the allegations of the complaint, and then alleged by way of affirmative defense that they were the owners of a certain team of horses, and that on the date of the accident they let this team to the defendant Harvey, to be used exclusively by said Harvey for his own purposes and not for the business of the appellants, and that the said Harvey had the sole control of said horses, and, if the respondent was damaged by reason of the use of said horses, the appellants were not responsible.

It was conceded at the trial of the cause that the team of horses which ran away belonged to the appellants, and was in charge of the defendant Harvey on that day. The evidence on the part of the respondent tended to show that Harvey left the team standing in the street in Seattle, without being hitched or guarded in any way, and while he was in a store the team ran away and did the damage complained of; that immediately after the team had run into the respondent's team and wagon the defendant Harvey came up, and, when asked whom the team belonged to, said: 'I am just working for Mr. Bullock. He owns the outfit.' There was evidence to the effect that the team which ran away was nervous and of a high-spirited disposition. At the close of respondent's evidence, the appellants moved the court for a directed verdict, which motion was denied. The evidence of the appellants was to the effect that the defendant Harvey had been employed by...