Osborne v. Van Dyke

• Citation: 85 N.W. 784,113 Iowa 557
• Parties: OSBORNE v. VAN DYKE.
• Decision Date: 12 April 1901
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

113 Iowa 557

85 N.W. 784

OSBORNE

v.VAN DYKE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 12, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Lucas county; T. M. Fee, Judge.

Action to recover damages for personal injuries inflicted through the negligence of defendant. There was a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict in defendant's favor. From a judgment rendered thereon assessing the costs of the action to plaintiff, he appeals. Reversed.Dungan & Bartholomew, for appellant.

Stuart & Stuart, for appellee.

WATERMAN, J.

Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant, and, among other duties, had the care of several horses. On the occasion in question, as plaintiff was leading into a shed with a halter one of the horses, defendant stopped him, and undertook to apply a wash to a galled place on the animal's neck. The horse was nervous and restless, and would not stand, so a twitch was put on him, and plaintiff held this with the halter while the wash was applied. After the twitch was removed, defendant noticed another bruised spot on the animal's shoulder, and he attempted, without replacing the twitch, to wash this. The horse jumped aside, and struck defendant, throwing upon his clothes the medicine, which he had in a tin can in his hand. This angered defendant, who seized the twitch, the handle of which was a heavy stick with a nail in the end, and began violently and brutally beating the horse, which struggled to escape. Plaintiff tried, without avail, to induce defendant to desist. Finally, a blow aimed missed the horse because of a slip by defendant, and plaintiff was struck in the face, breaking the bones of his nose and otherwise injuring him. There was no evidence tending to show that the blow so struck was intentional. The court submitted the case to the jury on the theory of defendant's negligence, instructing them that defendant would not be liable if in beating the horse he exercised reasonable care to avoid striking plaintiff, and the blow which inflicted the injury was caused by an accidental slip, for which defendant was not to blame; and the jury was further told, in effect, this would be so even if defendant, in beating the horse, was guilty of an unlawful act.

We think the instructions omit one essential fact, viz.: Was it negligence for defendant to strike the horse in the manner he did and under the circumstances existing at the time? If it was, he is liable for the natural and probable consequences of his act, even though the precise result which followed may not have been anticipated. Doyle v. Railway Co., 77 Iowa, 607-610, 42 N. W. 555, 4 L. R. A. 420. An “accident” may be defined as an event happening unexpectedly and without fault. Leame v. Bray, 3 East. 593. Now, it cannot be said that defendant was without fault for the slip of the foot, which he urges in excuse, if it grew out of or resulted from his negligent act. There was evidence tending to show that defendant, in brutally beating the horse while plaintiff was holding it, did so for no other purpose than to vent his rage by inflicting physical pain on the object of his fury. The slip of the foot that caused the blow to go amiss cannot, if this state of facts is true, be said to have been without plaintiff's fault. He could not reasonably have supposed the horse would stand quietly and receive the punishment administered. If, then, he was negligent in striking the animal as he did, he cannot escape because some intervening cause, growing out of his wrong, aided in producing the result of which complaint is made. Gould v. Schermer, 101 Iowa, 583, 70 N. W. 697.

The case at bar is stronger in its facts than the one cited, for here there is evidence tending to show the claimed intervening cause was brought about by defendant's...