Lee v. City of Burlington

• Decision Date: 10 April 1901
• Citation: 113 Iowa 356,85 N.W. 618
• Parties: LEE v. CITY OF BURLINGTON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

113 Iowa 356

85 N.W. 618

LEE

v.CITY OF BURLINGTON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 10, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Des Moines county; W. S. Withrow, Judge.

Action to recover damages for the death of a horse, due, as is alleged, to its becoming frightened at a steam roller negligently operated on one of defendant's streets. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the petition, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Stutsman & Stutsman, for appellant.

George S. Tracy, for appellee.

DEEMER, J.

The negligence alleged is that defendant failed to erect barriers or guards to prevent people driving on the streets where the roller was being operated; failed to give warning to persons going on the street of the danger; started the roller by blowing off steam and smoke, and making a loud noise, in such a manner as to frighten plaintiff's horse; and failed to stop the roller after defendant knew that plaintiff's horse was frightened. It is also alleged that, by reason of these negligent acts, plaintiff's horse was frightened, causing a rupture of the heart and the death of the horse, “so determined by a post mortem examination by a veterinary surgeon.” Defendant claims that it had the right to operate the roller in the ordinary manner, and that, if plaintiff's horse was injured thereby, it was damnum absque injuria, and that the claim of death from fright is too speculative, remote, and contingent to furnish the basis of an action for damages.

For the purpose of the case, it may be assumed that the defendant was negligent, and the sole question then is, is defendant liable for the death of the horse caused through fright alone? If there had been any physical injury to the horse due to defendant's negligence and resulting in death, there would undoubtedly be liability. But where death results from fright alone the defendant is not liable in damages, since such a result is so unusual and extraordinary that one ought not to be held liable therefor. As a general rule, no recovery may be had for injuries resulting from fright caused by negligence of another, where no immediate personal injury is received. This is the settled rule as to human beings (Railway Co. v. Stewart [Ind. App.] 56 N. E. 917;Mitchell v. Railway Co. [N. Y. App.] 45 N. E. 354, 34 L. R. A. 781;Nelson v. Crawford [Mich.] 81 N. W. 335;Ewing v. Railway Co. [Pa. Sup.] 23 Atl. 340, 14 L. R. A. 666;Spade v. Railroad Co. [Mass.] 47 N. E. 88, 38 L. R. A. 512;Kalen v. Railroad Co. [Ind. Sup.] ...