Willis v. Semmes

• Decision Date: 05 June 1916
• Docket Number: 18250
• Citation: 71 So. 865,111 Miss. 589
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIS v. SEMMES ET AL

71 So. 865

111 Miss. 589

WILLIS v. SEMMES ET AL

No. 18250

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 5, 1916

APPEAL from the circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. J. L BUCKLEY, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. N. N. Willis against John M. Semmes, Jr., and others. From a judgment on peremptory instructions for defendant plaintiff appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Fewell & Cameron, for appellant.

Cochran & McCants, for appellees.

OPINION

SYKES J.

The appellant here, plaintiff in the court below, filed suit in the circuit court of Lauderdale county for damage against the appellees for the sum of ten thousand dollars for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her on or about the 15th day of February, 1913, in the city of Meridian,

The testimony for the plaintiff in the court below showed that in the early part of the night of the above-mentioned date the plaintiff, in company with her daughter-in-law, alighted from a West End street car at Fifth street and Twenty-Third avenue, and started toward the sidewalk, when some one hollered, "Look out for a runaway horse!" The appellant's daughter-in-law arrived at the sidewalk in safety, but the appellant, who was an old lady of about sixty-nine years of age, in the confusion of the moment was unable to escape, and was struck and run over by a runaway horse hitched to a wagon, in which wagon there was no one whatever. The wagon was the delivery wagon of the defendants. It appears from the testimony that while the horse was running away in the street a small boy, who evidently must have been driving the wagon at some period before the horse ran away, was running along on the sidewalk hollering to people to look out for the runaway horse, and apparently was trying to overtake the horse. The plaintiff sustained severe personal injuries which it is unnecessary for us to discuss in this opinion.

After the introduction of the testimony for the plaintiff, upon a motion by the defendants, the testimony was excluded, and the jury peremptorily instructed to return a verdict for the defendant. This was done, and judgment was rendered thereupon, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The only question presented to the court for decision is whether or not the proof of the fact that the horse was running away with no driver or no one else in the wagon or on the ground holding the reins was sufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence against the defendants. This is the first time that this question has been presented to this court for decision. It is a well-known fact that by virtue of their training horses are not in the habit of running away when there is some one in charge of the vehicle to which they are harnessed. The weight of authority seems to be that, when some...