Rivers v. Pierce, 14649.
| Decision Date | 27 May 1940 |
| Docket Number | 14649. |
| Citation | 103 P.2d 690,106 Colo. 236 |
| Parties | RIVERS v. PIERCE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 17, 1940.
In Department.
Error to Larimer County Court; Arthur E. March, Judge.
Action by E. R. Rivers against Wade Pierce to recover for the loss of a horse, allegedly killed by defendant's negligent operation of a motor vehicle, wherein defendant filed a counterclaim for damages. To review a judgment adverse to plaintiff in the main action and adverse to defendant on its counterclaim, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Mortimer Stone and Alden T. Hill, both of Fort Collins, for plaintiff in error.
Hatfield Chilson, of Loveland, and Robert M. McCreary, of Fort Collins, for defendant in error.
Action in damages by plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff below, for the loss of a horse, allegedly killed by defendant's negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Plaintiff recovered in the justice of the peace court, but on appeal to the county court, sitting without a jury, a motion for nonsuit was sustained at the close of plaintiff's case. The findings of the court were against defendant on his counterclaim for damages to his car. Reversal is sought by plaintiff on a writ of error. No cross-error is assigned to the ruling on the counterclaim.
The facts briefly are as follows: Plaintiff owns about fifty saddle horses at Estes Park. On the evening of July 5, 1938 about ten o'clock, two of his employees were driving the herd along the paved highway in an easterly direction from the village to the pasture. The horses were strung along the north side of the road (next to the pasture) for about one hundred yards. At the same time, defendant approached in his car, driving between forty and fifty miles an hour. He did not slacken his speed, he says, because he did not see the horses. He had passed all except the last one, which suddenly jumped in front of his car and was so badly injured that it had to be killed. The employees admitted they did nothing to get the horse off the shoulder of the road when they saw the car coming.
We think the court properly sustained the motion for nonsuit.
While a motorist is required to exercise reasonable care to avoid a collision with domestic animals on a highway, he is not an insurer against injury to such animals, and if injury occurs which is unavoidable he is not liable. Liability attaches in such cases only where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grubb v. Wolfe
...421, 362 P.2d 798; Lucero v. Torres, 67 N.M. 10, 350 P.2d 1028. See, also, Shelton v. Rudd (Mo.App.1922) 242 S.W. 151; Rivers v. Pierce, 106 Colo. 236, 103 P.2d 690; Pickett v. Travelers Ins. Co. (La.App.1961) 127 So.2d The remaining points advanced by plaintiff for reversal are directed at......
- Paine v. People
-
Hitzel v. Clark
...to decisions from several of the western states. A motorist is not an insurer against injury to animals on a highway. Rivers v. Pierce, 106 Colo. 236, 103 P.2d 690 (1940); Snowden v. Hall, 472 P.2d 711 (Colo.App.1970). No presumption of negligence exists against a driver whose vehicle colli......