Lee v. City of Burlington

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

85 N.W. 618

113 Iowa 356

MARY J. LEE, Appellant, v. THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, Appellee

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 10, 1901

Appeal from Des Moines District Court.--HON. 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.

OPINION

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 the negligence of another, where no immediate personal injury is received. This is the settled rule as to human beings. Cleveland, C., C. St. L. Ry. Co. v. Stewart 24 Ind.App. 374 (56 N.E. 917); Mitchell v. Railway Co., 151 N.Y. 107 (45 N.E. 354, 34 L.R.A. 781); Nelson v. Crawford 122 Mich. 466 (81 N.W. 335); Ewing v. Railway Co....