McCleary v. Frantz
Decision Date | 26 March 1894 |
Docket Number | 367 |
Citation | 28 A. 929,160 Pa. 535 |
Parties | McCleary v. Frantz, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued March 8, 1894
Appeal, No. 367, Jan. T., 1894, by defendant, Samuel O Frantz, from judgment of C.P. Franklin Co., Dec. T., 1889 No. 79, on verdict for plaintiff, Harry McCleary. Affirmed.
Trespass for personal injuries caused by alleged negligence of defendant in firing shotgun.
At the trial, it appeared that plaintiff, in company with defendant and two other persons, started out from Waynesboro on a gunning expedition. While on their way to the hunting ground they discussed the danger of four persons hunting together, and the importance of their keeping together. They finally reached the edge of a woods near a hill. Three of the party, including defendant, proceeded eastward up the ascent of the hill, and crossed its crest and disappeared on the other side. Plaintiff remained behind, saying that he would hunt there a little while and join them later. It was understood that in their course they were to keep bearing towards Blue Rock schoolhouse. About the time the three passed up the hill, plaintiff started in a southerly direction through the woods on a line somewhat parallel with the line which the three took after they had crossed the hill and were out of his sight. In a few moments he changed his purpose and undertook to rejoin his comrades who had passed over the crest of the hill. As he approached the crest of the hill, a gun was discharged by one of the party of three who had advanced over the hill and who were not in sight. Immediately after another gun was discharged. The second discharge was from a gun in the hands of defendant. These shots were directed at a rabbit which had been raised by the party. When the second shot was fired the rabbit had reached the crest of the hill. Plaintiff's head and shoulders were both in range of the gun at the time it was fired. The shot killed the rabbit and part of the load struck plaintiff in the face, causing the loss of one eye, and physical injury in other respects.
Defendant's points were among others as follows:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $800.
Errors assigned were (1-4) instructions, quoting them.
Judgment affirmed.
W. Rush Gillan, Charles Walter and A. F. Hostetter with him, for appellant, cited: Fox v. Borkey, 126 Pa. 168; Gerity v. Haley, 29 W.Va. 98; Butcher ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hawksley v. Peace
...v. Durand, 36 Conn. 182, 4 Am. Rep. 55; Bahel v. Manning, 112 Mich. 24, 70 N. W. 327, 36 L R. A. 523, 67 Am. St. Rep. 381; McCleary v. Frantz, 160 Pa. 535, 28 Atl. 929; Winans v. Randolph, 169 Pa. 606, 32 Atl. 622; Glueck v. Scheld, 125 Cal. 288, 57 Pac. 1003; Seltzer v. Saxton, 71 Ill. App......
- Stofflet v. Stofflet
-
Annear v. Swartz
...evidence of negligence that the defendant attempted to let the hammer down while the gun was pointing at the plaintiff. In McCleary v. Frantz, 160 Pa. 535, 28 A. 929, a question very nearly the same as the case at bar was presented. In that case four persons were hunting together and one se......
-
Annear v. Swartz
...evidence of negligence that the defendant attempted to let the hammer down while the gun was pointing at the plaintiff. In McCleary v. Frantz, 160 Pa. 539, 28 A. 929, a very nearly the same as the case at bar was presented. In that case four persons were hunting together, and one separated ......