Moses Fertel v. George Peck
| Decision Date | 18 October 1907 |
| Citation | 67 A. 818,80 Vt. 351 |
| Parties | MOSES FERTEL v. GEORGE PECK |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
October Term, 1907.
CASE for negligence. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1906, Washington County, Rowell, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. At the close of all the evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict in his favor for that there was no evidence tending to show unskillful driving on his part that there was no evidence tending to show negligence on his part; and that, on the evidence, plaintiff, as matter of law was guilty of contributory negligence. This motion was denied, to which ruling the defendant excepted.
Judgment affirmed.
Fred L. Laird for the defendant.
John Wing and C. H. Senter for the plaintiff.
Present TYLER, MUNSON and WATSON, JJ., and WATERMAN, SUPERIOR J.
There was evidence tending to show that whenever defendant's horse came near an approaching electric car it would start up suddenly and run past the car, and that it was uncontrollable in this respect; that defendant had owned the horse over a year, and had very often driven it through the streets where the cars ran, and knew how it acted at these times; that on the occasion when plaintiff received his injury, the defendant, while still at some distance, saw the plaintiff's party at work between the car track and the curb, and beyond them an approaching street car; that he kept on at ordinary driving speed, and thus brought the passing of his team and the car at the point where the men were working,--when for aught that appeared he might, by lessening his speed, have brought the meeting at a point where no one would have been endangered. This was evidence tending to show that the defendant did not take the care that a prudent man would have taken in driving such a horse in such circumstances.
There was also evidence tending to show that plaintiff's position with his back to teams coming from one direction was required by his work; that he could not be working and watching for teams from the rear at the same time, but that once in a while he would look around; that others working with him did the same, and that some of these saw the defendant's team and warned him; that he started towards the gutter, but did not have time to escape from the team which passed the car in the manner before described. In view of this evidence, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial