Scott v. Hogan

• Decision Date: 14 October 1887
• Citation: 34 N.W. 444,72 Iowa 614
• Parties: SCOTT v. HOGAN AND OTHERS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

72 Iowa 614

34 N.W. 444

SCOTT

v.HOGAN AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 14, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Lyon county.

Action to recover the value of a mare, alleged to have been so injured through negligence in breeding her to defendants' horse as to cause her death. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.E. Y. Greenleaf, for appellants.

J. M. Parsons, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The groom who attended to the horse when serving plaintiff's mare was asked if he exercised “good caution” in the business. He replied that he did. The evidence, upon motion of plaintiff, was rightly stricken out. It expresses the witness' judgment or opinion that he exercised “good caution.”This was not competent. He should have stated what he did; the jury determining whether it constituted proper care or “good caution.”

2. After the injury, plaintiff gave to defendant his promissory note for the services of the horse. It contained these words: “All accidents, escapes, etc., at owner's risk.” The note was offered in evidence, and rightly rejected, upon plaintiff's objection, for two reasons: (1) The note was executed after the injury. If a contract releasing defendants from liability, it did not apply to the accident, for the reason that it had not been entered into at the time. (2) If it be applicable, it is a contract against accidents, not against injuries resulting from negligence.

3. A motion by defendant for a more specific statement in the petition was overruled: (1) It required such statement in order to show how and in what manner defendants were negligent; (2) how, and in what manner, and to what extent, the mare was injured. We think the petition is sufficiently explicit. It alleges negligence in breeding the mare. It was not necessary to state the particular acts and omissions of the defendants. It also alleges that the mare was injured by the negligent breeding, so that she died. It was not necessary to state particularly the things done or omitted. The extent of the injury is shown by the allegation that it caused the mare's death.

4. The district court instructed the jury, in effect, that the degree of care to be exercised by defendants was proportioned to the degree of danger. It is not claimed that the instruction is abstractly incorrect, but it is insisted that there was no evidence to which it was applicable. But, in our opinion, the evidence shows that, on account of the disposition exhibited...