Shaw v. Joyce
| Decision Date | 14 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 665,665 |
| Citation | 106 S.E.2d 459,249 N.C. 415 |
| Parties | Joe Barker SHAW v. Ramey (Raymond) JOYCE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
J. H. Blalock and Edward N. Swanson, Pilot Mountain, for plaintiff appellant.
Wilson Barber, Mt. Airy, for defendant appellee.
The measure of defendant's duty as owner of the mule to prevent it from roaming on the highway is concisely stated in Gardner v. Black, 217 N.C. 573, 9 S.E.2d 10, 11. It is there said: Similar declarations are found in Kelly v. Willis, 238 N.C. 637, 78 S.E.2d 711; Lloyd v. Bowen, 170 N.C. 216, 86 S.E. 797; Pongetti v. Spraggins, 215 Miss. 397, 61 So.2d 158, 34 A.L.R.2d 1277; Smith v. Whitlock, 124 W.Va. 224, 19 S.E.2d 617, 140 A.L.R. 737; 2 Am.Jur. 737, 738.
To establish defendant's negligent failure to keep the mule off the highway, plaintiff offered evidence that the mule was kept in a pasture to the rear of defendant's home and about 250 feet from the highway; the wire around the pasture was old, the gate was a 'tobacco slide.' The mule escaped from the pasture earlier on the day of the collision and on the night before the collision. Defendant knew of these escapes. Following the accident defendant stated '* * * he had a poor fence down there, a poor pasture where he kept his mules and cows * * *.' This evidence sufficed to require submission of an appropriate issue to the jury.
Whether plaintiff was negligent in not seeing the mule before it came on the highway or in failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent the collision must be determined by a jury.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutton v. Duke
...go upon a nearby highway and cause injury to travelers and vehicles thereon. Wells v. Johnson, 269 N.C. 622, 153 S.E.2d 2; Shaw v. Joyce, 249 N.C. 415, 106 S.E.2d 459. However, it was not the pony with which plaintiff collided; it was a mule which--along with three others--became so excited......
-
Hartford Ins. Group v. Massey, 44963
...was on the highway and was struck by his agent who was driving the truck. This case does not fall within the purview of Shaw v. Joyce, 249 N.C. 415, 106 S.E.2d 459 (1959), for the reason that in Shaw the fence was shown to be in a poor state of repair and the mule involved in the accident w......
-
Streib v. Hocutt
...730- 31 (1960) (defendant not negligent even when his ill mule escaped and search was not resumed for six hours); Shaw v. Joyce, 249 N.C. 415, 416, 106 S.E.2d 459, 460 (1959) (negligence when defendantknew mule escaped three times shortly before the collision); Kelly v. Willis, 238 N.C. 637......
-
Sutton v. Duke, 698SC560
...a reasonably prudent person in keeping the animal in restraint. Herndon v. Allen, 253 N.C. 271, 116 S.E.2d 728 (1960); Shaw v. Joyce, 249 N.C. 415, 106 S.E.2d 459 (1959); Kelly v. Willis, 238 N.C. 637, 78 S.E.2d 711 (1953); Gardner v. Black, 217 N.C. 573, 9 S.E.2d 10 (1940). In this case th......