Payne v. Smith
| Decision Date | 20 October 1836 |
| Citation | 34 Ky. 497 |
| Parties | Payne v. Smith. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FAYETTE COUNTY.
Mr. L B. Smith for plaintiff.
Mr Combs for defendant.
The only question to be considered in this case, is whether a verdict and judgment for the defendant, on the general issue in an action of trespass, prosecuted against him, by the plaintiff, for killing her horse, were authorized by the facts and law of the case.
It is the duty of every one when riding or driving upon the public highways-- especially in large cities and towns, to be prudent and cautious not to expose others to injury, in their persons or property. And where the streets are narrow, or casually obstructed, increased vigilance is required And they who disregard these obligations, are answerable to those who without fault on their part, may suffer by it. So--
Held, that where the defendant's gig, in which he was driving at a brisk trot, through a narrow pass, came in contact with the plaintiff's horse--which was loose in the street, and was walking obliquely across the defendant's course, and struck him with the point of the shaft and killed him, the accident was attributable to the defendant's negligence, or recklessness; or at least, to his imprudent driving; and that he is, therefore, liable to the plaintiff for the value of the horse.
From the bill of exceptions, it appears that, whilst driving his horse in a gig, in a brisk trot, in one of the streets of Lexington, the defendant, in passing through a narrow space of about ten feet in width, between a wagon and one of the side pavements, came in contact with the plaintiff's horse, which was walking alone, across the street, rather obliquely towards the gig, and had, perhaps with some momentary alarm and increased speed occasioned by the wagon and the gig, at the instant of contact, passed the wagon, and approached within about two feet of the side walk, when one of the shafts penetrating its body about eighteen inches, the defendant, as soon as he afterwards could, stopped his own horse, and extricated the defendant's horse, which shortly afterwards died in consequence of the wound thus inflicted.
The testimony will not allow the inference, that the violent collision was the consequence, altogether or chiefly, of the heedlessness, or voluntary perverseness of the plaintiff's horse; or that the injurious contact...
To continue reading
Request your trial