Stanley v. Steele

• Decision Date: 20 April 1905
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STANLEY et al. v. STEELE.

60 A. 640

77 Conn. 688

STANLEY et al.

v. STEELE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 20, 1905.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; George W. Wheeler, Judge.

Action by Sarah L. Stanley and others against Howard M. Steele. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

William F. Henney and Henry C. Gussman, for appellant. John H. Kirkham and James E. Cooper, for appellees.

HALL, J. This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $750 for injuries received by the plaintiff Sarah L. Stanley from the overturning of a carriage hired of the defendant. The amended complaint alleges that the defendant was a livery stable keeper; that he let to the plaintiffs a carriage and a pair of horses, with a driver; that the carriage and its appliances were defective, in that the pole, neck yoke, and pole straps were of insufficient strength and out of repair, and that the driver was incompetent; that the neck yoke became detached from the collar of one of the horses, and the driver lost control of the team, and the pole broke, and the carriage was overturned; that the accident was caused by the unskillful handling of the horses, and by the failure of the defendant to exercise due and proper diligence in furnishing a safe driver and safe harnesses and appliances.

The facts showing the cause of the accident are these: A part of the harness or appliances furnished by the defendant was a neck yoke, consisting of a wooden bar about three feet long, which, by a leather loop at the middle, is attached at right angles to the end of the carriage pole. Fitted to each end of the neck yoke is a metal cap or thimble, through a slot or opening on the surface of which a strap passes around the neck yoke and is connected with the horse collar, and by this attachment to the pole the carriage is held back and turned. On the underside of each of said thimbles is a small hole, countersunk for a screw to go through into the neck yoke, to prevent the thimble from slipping off. The head of the screw upon the right-hand thimble was too small for the countersink, so that, when screwed down, the top of the screw head was below the outer surface of the thimble, and only the outer edge of the screw head held the thimble. While driving down a slight grade a part of this screw head broke off, and the thimble slipped over the broken screw head and off the neck yoke, and the pole was thereby let down; and the carriage, coming against the horses, frightened them, and they ran away, throwing the plaintiff from the carriage and seriously injuring her.

It is claimed, among the reasons of appeal, that the trial court, in deciding that the defendant was negligent in not having discovered the defect in the neck yoke which was the cause of the accident, erred in holding him to too high a degree of care, and also erred in finding and in refusing to find certain facts. A statement of the evidence and rulings in the case is made a part of the record, as provided by section 797 of the General Statutes of 1902.

Concerning this defect from the smallness of the screw head in the thimble, the trial judge says in the finding: "A casual observer might not have seen it, but a person whose duty it was to exercise due care to see that the harness and carriage were in a safe condition, so that the security of his passengers might be preserved, would have seen it, and ought to have seen it. Said defect was not hidden, but it was plain to be seen by the eye, and could have been seen by the defendant, who was present when said team was furnished the plaintiff, if he had used ordinary care in examining the equipment." The finding states that "the defendant testified that, had he noticed the screw, he never would have used the yoke, while his foreman testified the screw was so small a blind man could see that." As to the degree of care required of the defendant, the trial judge says in his finding: "Hadley and Wife v. Cross, 34 Vt. 586, 80 Am. Dec. 699, states the rule which I adopt: 'In any business involving the personal safety and lives of others, what is due care, reasonable diligence? Clearly, nothing less than the most watchful care and the most active diligence. Anything short of that is negligence and carelessness, and would furnish clear ground for liability if an injury was thereby sustained.'"

An examination of the evidence shows that the plaintiffs endeavored to prove at the trial that the defect in the neck yoke was that the thimble which came off had not been fastened to the neck yoke at all, and that the plaintiffs' witnesses who examined the neck yoke after the accident testified that there was no screw in the end of the neck yoke where the timble had come off. After the neck yoke and thimble had been produced in court, showing the screw still in it, and the broken screw head, the court says that it had "grave doubts" whether that was really the yoke in question. It having been proven to be the yoke in use at the time of the accident, the case evidently turned upon the question of whether due care upon the part of the defendant required him to so carefully inspect the neck yoke as to discover that the head of the screw through the underside...