Sleeper v. World of Mirth Show, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1956 |
| Parties | Stephen SLEEPER v. WORLD OF MIRTH SHOW, Inc. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
McCabe & Fisher and Harold D. Moran, Dover, for plaintiff.
Burns, Calderwood & Bryant and Robert E. Hinchey, Dover, for defendant.
Richard F. Upton, Concord, amicus curiae.
This action arises out of injuries received by the plaintiff when as a business invitee of the defendant, he attended an exhibition of wild animals in a tent erected by the defendant for the purpose. The plaintiff with his wife and two children entered the tent after purchasing the necessary admission tickets. He testified that before entering he also purchased some peanuts from a vendor near the entrance to the tent, in response to the assertion that 'they are good to eat, and the animals love them. * * *' After entering the tent he proceeded along a chain located about six feet from the front of a line of cages, tossing peaunts into the cages as he went. There was evidence that a sign 'in the center' of the chain bore a warning which read either 'Danger' or 'Keep Out.' The plaintiff returned to the exit by the same route. The hyena cage was nearest the exit. Both the plaintiff and his wife testified that the chain passed around or through a post in front of this cage, and that a rope then ran at an angle toward the cage and was attached to the second or third bar from the solid end of the cage next to the passageway from the tent. The plaintiff testified that he followed the rope along and tossed a peanut to the hyena; that as he did so the hyena reached through the bars, hooked the plaintiff's little finger with its claws and pulled his right hand and arm into the cage. He was unable to extricate himself until an attendant had poked at the hyena with a stick. In the meantime the animal bit his hand, seriously lacerating it, and damaging the third finger to such an extent that osteomyelitis resulted and amputation was eventually required.
The plaintiff has argued before this court that the defendant's liability as the keeper of a wild animal is absolute and not dependent upon proof of negligence. However the pretrial order stated that the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was negligent, and the issue of the due care of each party was submitted to the jury. Since the plaintiff's exceptions are not transferred, the issue of whether the defendant was subject to absolute liability is not before us.
The defendant's motions for a nonsuit and a directed verdict raised the question of whether there was evidence to warrant a finding that the defendant was negligent, and the plaintiff free from fault. The motions were properly denied. Although it is argued that the plaintiff's writ did not allege the defendant's negligence, negligence was claimed on pretrial, and the writ may be amended if necessary to conform to the proof even after the verdict. Derby v. Public Service Company, 100 N.H. 53, 119 A.2d 335. Under the circumstances the failure to allege negligence in the declaration cannot be held to preclude recovery.
The plaintiff's testimony concerning the arrangement of the tent and in particular the course of the rope or chain barring spectators from the hyena cage was contradicted by other evidence. Yet if believed by the jury, it warranted a finding that the defendant failed to provide adequate safeguards against the risk that its invitees might come too close to the cage and be injured, as was the plaintiff in this case. Panorama Resort v. Nichols, 165 Va. 289, 182 S.E. 235; Bottcher v. Buck, 265 Mass. 4, 163 N.E. 182. See McNeely: Dangerous Animals, 37 Mich.L.Rev. 1181, 1191-1205; Prosser on Torts (2nd ed.) s. 57, p. 326.
The issue of the plaintiff's care was likewise a question for the jury. He testified that he knew nothing of hyenas and gave no thought to whether 'the animal was wild enough to hurt me or not.' While he conceded that his hand came within a foot of the bars as he tossed the peanut, he testified that he did not know at the time 'that the animal could reach out between the bars and grab [his] hand,' and that he was just following the guardrail 'that was presented for the people to follow along.' Although he was under a duty to give thought to his own safety (see Robinson v. Boston & M. Railroad, 85 N.H. 474, 476, 160 A. 473), his admitted failure to consider whether the animal was 'wild enough to hurt' him cannot be held conclusive proof of lack of care, since it could be found that he had no knowledge of its characteristics. Even if the jury found in accordance with his prior testimony on deposition that he knew it was wild, and further, as he testified on trial, that just before the accident he had seen it reach between the bars to get a peanut 'on the very edge' of the 'little platform just outside the cage,' it did not follow that he was for that reason bound to anticipate that the animal both could and would seize his hand in mid-air, a foot or more away from the bars.
As the Trial Court instructed the jury, the defendant owed the duty of making the premises safe, or giving warning of dangers of which it knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known. Lynch v. Sprague, 95 N.H. 485, 66 A.2d 697; Monier v. Belzil, 97 N.H. 176, 83 A.2d 923. The plaintiff was entitled to rely on the performance of this duty by the defendant and was not chargeable as a matter of law with knowledge that the hyena was both vicious and prehensile, so that it was dangerous to put his hand where the barrier provided by the defendant permitted. See Smith v. Benson's Wild Animal Farm, 99 N.H. 243, 246, 109 A.2d 39. A finding that he was negligent, or that he knew of the risk which caused his injury and voluntarily encountered it carelessly, as the defendant argues (see Restatement of the Law: Torts, s. 515, comment b), was not compelled. Bottcher v. Buck, supra; Stevens v. Hulse, 263 N.Y. 421, 189 N.E. 478; Hyde v. City of Utica, 259 App.Div. 477, 20 N.Y.S.2d 335; Baugh v. Beatty, 91 Cal.App.2d 786, 788, 793, 205 P.2d 671; Panorama Resort v. Nichols, supr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wszolek's Estate, In re
... ... The burden was on the claimant to show that a joint interest in the account was intended and ... ...
-
King v. Blue Mountain Forest Ass'n
...or in cases involving dangerous domestic animals. Login v. Waisman, 82 N.H. 500, 136 A. 134. In the recent case of Sleeper v. World of Mirth Show, 100 N.H. ----, 121 A.2d 799, liability for injuries received from an exhibitor's caged hyena was decided on the basis of negligence and not on t......
-
Casey v. M. L. Pike & Son, Inc.
...We find these inferences could be drawn from the evidence and were which the limits of the legitimate advocacy. Sleeper v. Company, 100 N.H. 158, 163, 121 A.2d 799. Others pertained to alleged misquotations of the evidence by counsel. The Trial Court instructed the jury to disregard any suc......
-
Kravitz v. Beech Hill Hosp., L.L.C.
...of pleadings, and we have held that a party may seek to amend even after a jury's verdict has been entered. See Sleeper v. Company, 100 N.H. 158, 160, 121 A.2d 799 (1956). Nonetheless, "[i]t is well settled that a defendant is entitled to be informed of the theory on which the plaintiffs ar......