Quimby v. Shattuck
| Decision Date | 06 October 1936 |
| Citation | 187 A. 479 |
| Parties | QUIMBY v. SHATTUCK. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Burque, Judge.
Action on the case by Delbert Quimby against Harland R. Shattuck. On defendant's exceptions to orders denying nonsuit and directing verdict, to motion to set aside verdict for plaintiff, and to certain instructions.
Judgment for defendant.
Action on the case to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff as the result of his being gored by the defendant's bull. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant seasonably moved for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict, and also to set the verdict aside as being against the law and the evidence. These motions were denied, and the defendant excepted. The defendant also excepted to certain instructions applying the doctrine of master and servant to the case. All of the exceptions were based upon the contention that the plaintiff must be found to have assumed the risk. The facts appear in the opinion.
Robert J. Doyle, of Manchester, for plaintiff.
George I. Haselton, of Manchester, for defendant.
The plaintiff suffered the injuries for which he seeks to recover while working for the defendant upon the latter's farm. One of his duties was to care for the defendant's cattle. Among these was a bull, which, at the time he gored the plaintiff, occupied a tie-up in the barn next to that of one of the cows.
The plaintiff had discovered that the cow had broken her stanchion and moved somewhat out of place. Unable to get her into position otherwise, the plaintiff had stepped between her and the bull and slapped her in the face. This having accomplished nothing, the plaintiff had lifted his foot to kick her in the nose, when the bull drew back his head and gored the plaintiff's leg. At the moment, the plaintiff's back was against a post some six or eight inches from the nearest of the bull's stanchions. He stood with his back towards the bull.
When the plaintiff entered the tie-up, the bull's head was between the stanchions and he seemed calm enough. There was no evidence that either the plaintiff or the defendant had any knowledge that the bull was more vicious than the average of his kind. It could be found that the method of tying the bull prescribed by the defendant was by chains so long as to permit the animal to back far enough to be able to withdraw his head from the stanchions. The bull had never been dehorned, as both parties well knew.
The burden was upon the plaintiff to show that the risk to which he was exposed and which resulted in his injury was one which he did not appreciate and would not have appreciated if in the exercise of reasonable care. Bennett v. Concord Woodworking Company, 74 N.H. 400, 68 A. 460. The plaintiff's own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Crotchett
... ... Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co., 179 ... Mo. 66, 77 S.W. 882; Manufacturers Fuel Co. v. James ... White, 116 Ill.App. 107; Quimby v. Shattuck, ... 187 A. 479. (4) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 is erroneous ... and should have been refused because it permitted a recovery ... even ... ...
-
Fasekis v. J. J. Newbury Co.
...in the opening statement were insufficient to warrant a finding that the plaintiff, on whom the burden of proof rested (Quimby v. Shattuck, 88 N.H. 262, 263, 187 A. 479), did not know and appreciate the danger she incurred in using the stool. See Meersman v. Davison, 88 N.H. 93, 184 A. 608;......
- Woodsville Fire Dist. v. Cray
-
Rosedoff v. Consol. Rendering Co.
...He was familiar with the characteristics of cattle, ‘that didn't go where you want to drive them.’ Here, as in Quimby v. Shattuck, 88 N.H. 262, 263, 187 A. 479, 480, ‘he was fully aware of the general danger from the horns of all cattle.’ It must have been apparent to a man of the plaintiff......