Yan v. Ah You
| Decision Date | 15 April 1893 |
| Docket Number | Civil 370 |
| Parties | DON YAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. AH YOU, Defendant in Error |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
WRIT OF ERROR from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Pima. Richard E Sloan, Judge.
Reversed.
Barnes & Martin, for Plaintiff in Error.
C. W Wright, for Defendant in Error.
OPINION
The facts are stated in the opinion.
This was a suit by the administrator of the estate of Ah You, deceased, for the benefit of the widow and children of the deceased, for damages resulting from his death, caused by the alleged wrongful act of the appellant. There was a verdict for defendant in error.
There was evidence that Ah You and two or three others were co-owners of a drove of hogs; that among them was a vicious boar; that the hogs were kept and fed in a field through which ran an irrigating ditch; that the deceased had occasion to go into the field to clean out the ditch, so that it would serve to carry water to his garden, for the irrigation of which the ditch was constructed, and was attacked by the boar and received injuries from which he died; that the hogs were in charge of one of the co-owners, but not of the defendant; that the defendant had knowledge that the hog was vicious. There was a sharp conflict of evidence on most of these points.
The wrongful act complained of was the keeping of the boar by defendant after knowledge of his viciousness.
The court instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the deceased was attacked and killed by the boar without fault on his part; that the boar was dangerous and known to be so by those in charge of him; that at the time the boar attacked the deceased he was the property of the defendant, in whole or in part; and that the deceased left a widow and children surviving him, they should find for the plaintiff. The court further instructed the jury that
There were other instructions on the subject, but they need not be quoted at length. They were in effect that the defendant below was liable in this action whether the negligence or default was his own or that of a partner or co-owner.
Defendant in error (plaintiff below) cites many cases to the general proposition that the principal is liable for the negligent acts of the agent, and urges that upon the authority of those cases the instruction of court to the jury was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLellan v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
...fit. Quoting the "death by wrongful act" statute of Arizona as it then existed, the Supreme Court of the state, in Don Yan v. Ah You, 4 Ariz. 109, 111, 77 P. 618, 619, said: "The action at bar, however, is statutory, and the right to recover must be sought within its At the common law, caus......
-
Hogsett v. Hanna.
...ruling that an individual master was liable for the wrongful death caused by the tort of his servant, and cites the case of Don Yan v. Ah You, 4 Ariz. 109, 77 P. 618, and Texas cases. Neither the Arizona nor Texas statute is identical with the New Mexico act. Our statute was originally pass......
-
Nolan v. Moore
...individual.' See 8 R. C. L. p. 773; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. of Texas v. Freeman, 97 Tex. 394, 79 S.W. 9, 1 Ann. Cas. 481; Don Yan v. Ah You, 4 Ariz. 109, 77 P. 618; v. Jacob Dold Packing Co. (C. C.) 182 F. 356; 17 C.J. 1230. The statute in plain and explicit terms defines separately the li......
-
Sullivan-Sanford Lumber Co. v. Cooper
...case directly in point. The statute of Arizona is in the very same words as the second paragraph of our statute; and in Don Yan v. Ah You, 4 Ariz. 109, 77 Pac. 618, the Supreme Court of that state said: "The right of action in this case, if given at all, is given by the second clause above ......