Phillips v. Garner
Decision Date | 30 March 1914 |
Docket Number | 16459 |
Citation | 64 So. 735,106 Miss. 828 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | SARAH PHILLIPS v. LOU GARNER |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Hinds county, HON. W. A. HENRY Judge.
Suit by Sarah Phillips against Lou Garner. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
S.E Garner, for appellant.
Lou Garner's monkey bit Sarah Phillips on her leg. Then he scratched her back and hand. She was hurt. She says she was in bed two weeks, was using a crutch and a stick a month, and was unable to work about six weeks. She had to pay a physician for attention and prescription, and to pay over five dollars for medicines.
Lou kept her monkey in a cage at her house. One morning early he escaped, went to the premises where Sarah lived, and attacked her. The monkey also attacked a girl and a dog while out of his cage on this occasion. After Sarah was injured, Lou caught the monkey, put a chain on him, and carried him back to his cage.
Sarah, in her testimony, gives a graphic description of the attack, her flight, and her fear. She says: "He was a great big old monkey." When asked if the monkey held on long when he bit, she answered:
When appellant had introduced all of her testimony, and rested, the trial court granted a peremptory instruction in favor of appellee. We believe this case should have been submitted to the jury.
On the subject of liability by the owner for injuries by wild animals, we take the following from 2 Cyc., p. 367:
The case of May v. Burdett, Eng. Rep., Full Reprint, vol. 115, p. 1213, 9 QB 101, is a leading case on this subject. In that case a woman was bitten by a monkey, and the owner held liable. It was decided therein that the owner, if he would keep the animal, was bound to keep it secure at all events. In 1 Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 430, the author, in referring to the liability of the owner for injuries done by a wild animal, says:
In the case of Molloy v. Starin, 191 N.Y. 21, 83 N.E. 588, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 445, 14 Ann. Cas. 57, the court said that the liability of an owner of a wild animal is absolute, and he is bound to keep the animal secure, or he must suffer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Byrnes v. City of Jackson
...I. It is a recognized and general rule of law that those who keep animals ferae naturae must keep them at their peril. Phillips v. Lou Garmer, 106 Miss. 828; Ammons Kellogg, 102 So. 562. II. The maintenance and operation of a park is a private corporate function, a ministerial duty. And for......
-
Harrell v. State
...V Enters., Inc., 733 So.2d 170, 171–73 (¶¶ 5–12) (Miss.1997); Poy v. Grayson, 273 So.2d 491, 493–95 (Miss.1973); Phillips v. Garner, 106 Miss. 828, 828, 64 So. 735, 736 (1914). 4.See Cady, 413 U.S. at 436–48, 93 S.Ct. 2523;Floyd, 749 So.2d at 114–19 (¶¶ 13–33); Moore, 716 So.2d at 1137 (¶ 7......
-
Candler v. Smith
...to allege that the owner was negligent in allowing the animal to be at large, for he is bound to keep it secure at his peril. See Phillips v. Garner, supra; Popplewell v. 10 Cush. (Mass.) 509; May v. Burdett, 9 Q. B. 101, 115 Eng. Reprint, 1213, 3 Eng. Rul. Cas. 108; Parsons v. Manser, 119 ......
-
Candler v. Smith
...116 N. E. 99, L. R. A. 1918C, 400, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 807; Laverone v. Mangianti, 41 Cal. 138, 10 Am. Rep. 269; Phillips v. Garner, 106 Miss. 828, 64 So. 735, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 377; Beckett v. Beckett, 48 Mo. 396; Muller v. McKesson, 73 N. Y. 195, 29 Am. Rep. 123; Commonwealth v. Fourteen H......