McIlvaine v. Lantz
| Decision Date | 04 October 1882 |
| Citation | 100 Pa. 586 |
| Parties | McIlvaine <I>versus</I> Lantz. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county: Of January Term 1882, No. 88.
H. M. North and P. D. Baker, for the plaintiffs in error.— There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. The barnyard fence was such as is commonly used by prudent farmers, who raise stock, including stallions. The breaking or jumping of an ordinarily safe fence by a domestic animal is an accident, for which the owner is no more responsible, in the absence of ordinary care, than if such animal had broken the stable door or its halter, or should take fright and run away in the road: Goodman v. Gay, 3 Harr. 188; Scribner v. Kelly, 38 Barb. 14; Shearman and Redfield on Negligence § 188. The effect of the answers to the points was that the defendants were absolutely bound to prevent the escape of the horse to the highway, and that their failure to do so rendered them liable.
The injury was not caused directly by the stallion being on the highway, but by the foolhardy and negligent act of the woman herself in jumping out of the carriage. The maxim, causa proxima, non causa remota spectatur, applies.
E. K. Martin and G. C. Kennedy, for the defendant in error, cited Dolph v. Ferris, 7 W. & S. 367; Rossell v. Cottom, 7 Casey 526; Shearman and Redfield on Negligence (2d ed. 1870) p. 235, § 194.
This is a case of negligence. The injury was caused by the negligence of the plaintiffs in error, in permitting a stallion of theirs to escape from the yard in which he had been kept, and to roam on the public highway. The stallion was two years old, and was kept in a barnyard with another colt. The fence inclosing the yard was claimed to be as good as those which generally inclose the barnyards of farmers.
The jury have found that stallions of the age of this one, as a class, have vicious propensities, and are commonly known to have them; that they are liable and likely to do damage; that the plaintiffs in error were negligent and careless in keeping their stallion, and did not have sufficient and proper fences around the inclosure in which they had the stallion confined, and from which he escaped, to keep him properly confined; and that they did not use precautions necessary and proper to keep such animal from escaping, straying, and roving loose on the public highway, and endangering the traveling public; and that his being at large on the public road was the proximate cause of the injury complained of. They further found that the defendant in error was not guilty of any concurrent or contributory negligence on her part. All these facts were found on evidence sufficient to justify the finding. This leaves little for us to consider. The main...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bellows v. Pennsylvania & N.Y. Canal & R.R. Co.
...78 Pa. 219; Patterson on Railway Accident Law, §§ 6, 37; Murphy v. Crossan, 98 Pa. 495; Hydraulic Works Co. v. Orr, 83 Pa. 332; McIlvaine v. Lantz, 100 Pa. 586; Payne Reese, 100 Pa. 306; Born v. Plank Road Co., 101 Pa. 334; Harrisburg v. Saylor, 87 Pa. 216; King v. Thompson, 87 Pa. 365; Mal......
-
Briscoe v. Alfrey
...448. Nor when horse becomes frightened and escapes. 27 S.W. 200; 12 R. I. 518. See as to scienter, 25 N.E. 596; and as to fault of owner, 100 Pa. 586. Prudence and care are required. Bish. Non-Cont. Law, sec. 439; 16 Ark. 314. The dog cases cited by appellant are predicated on the peculiar ......
-
Kinley v. Bierly
...being legally characterized as a domestic animal." Appellant's brief at 9. In leveling this argument, Appellant relies upon McIlvaine v. Lantz, 100 Pa. 586 (1882), where a jury found that stallion colts, as a class, have vicious tendencies. However, McIlvaine addressed an issue relating to ......
-
Shaffer v. Roesch
...man, under the circumstances, the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of an accident and could have prevented it: McIlvaine v. Lantz, 100 Pa. 586; Devlin v. Beacon Light Co., 198 Pa. George L. Crawford, of Crawford & Loughlin, for appellee. -- An ordinance does not create a civil......