Sullivan v. City of Anderson
| Decision Date | 16 November 1908 |
| Citation | 62 S.E. 862,81 S.C. 478 |
| Parties | SULLIVAN v. CITY OF ANDERSON. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; D. E Hydrick, Judge.
Action by C. P. Sullivan against the city of Anderson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
John K Wood, for appellant.
G Cullen Sullivan, for respondent.
The plaintiff brought this action under section 2023, Civ. Code 1902, to recover $150 damages for injuries inflicted on a horse, due to a fall caused by the foot of the horse being caught in a bridge in one of the streets of the city of Anderson. The circuit judge instructed the jury, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, the verdict should be for depreciation in value of the horse due to the accident, and the expense of keeping him for a reasonable time thereafter, including the cost of food, care, and medicine. The jury rendered a verdict for $99.50.
These questions are involved in the appeal: Was there any evidence that the horse was injured through a defect in the bridge due to the neglect or mismanagement of the public authorities of the city of Anderson? Did the evidence admit of no other inference than that the accident and injury were due, either solely to the negligence of the driver in charge of the horse, or that the negligence of the driver contributed to the injury as a proximate cause? Was there any evidence that the load on the wagon exceeded the ordinary weight? Could the expense of care and treatment of the injured horse, for a reasonable time after the injury, be taken into the estimate of damages? There was evidence on the part of the plaintiff that the bridge was in bad condition before the accident; that there was a hole in it, and the timbers were unsound. As the witness Geer testified these defects were apparent to him, there was some evidence from which the jury could conclude it was negligence for the municipal authorities not to observe the defects and make the requisite repairs. The evidence relied on to show negligence of the driver was very far from conclusive. It is true when the plank gave way, causing the horse to fall, he had pulled the horse to one side of the bridge to avoid a hole on the other side, but this was a reasonable precaution, furnishing no evidence of negligence. There was nothing to show excessive speed, or any other act proving conclusively a lack of due care and contributing to the fall and injury of the horse. As the driver testified he had been out delivering groceries to the customers of the plaintiff, and was returning after such delivery when the accident happened, this was evidence from which the jury might infer that the load on the wagon had been discharged or at least that the wagon did not contain a load of more than ordinary weight.
The charge of the circuit judge as to the right of recovery for expenses reasonably incurred in the effort to cure the horse was in accord with reason and authority. The rule is well established that it is the duty of the owner of property injured by the negligence of another, to use all reasonable effort to minimize the damage. Willis v. Tel. Co., 69 S.C. 539, 48 S.E. 538, 104 Am. St. Rep. 828; Jones v. Tel. Co., 75 S.C. 213, 55 S.E. 318. If such effort is successful, the wrongdoer receives the benefit of it, and it is but just that he should bear the expense. He cannot impose...
To continue reading
Request your trial