Case ID: wis_22/html/0432-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Paine, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Strup vs. Edens.
    
      Negligence — Evidence.
    In an action for an injury occasioned by defendant’s horses while running away, the fact that they got loose after being hitched would be some evidence of negligence on his part.
    ERROR to the Circuit Court for Fond du Lae County.
    The action below was by Edens against Strap, for an injury to the daughter of the former done by the horses of the latter when running away. After a nonsuit had been denied, and after Sirup had introduced his evidence, there was a verdict and judgment for Edens. The only question here was, whether, when the nonsuit was denied, negligence on the part of the plaintiff in error had been shown.
    
      Gillet Pier, for plaintiff in error,
    to the point that the law will not infer negligence merely from the injury, cited Terry v. P. B., 22 Barb., 586; Cox v. Burhridge, 106 E. C. L., 430; Hammack v. White, 103 id., 587; Jackson v. Smithson, 15 M. & W., 563; Vrooman v. Lawyer, 13 Johns., 339; Panton v. Holland, 17 id., 92; Clark v. Foot, 8 id., 421; 
      Tourtellot v. Bosebrook, 11 Met., 460; Shrewsbury v. Smith, 12 push., 180; Holly v. Gas Go., 8 G-ray, 123; Holbrook v. B. B., 12 U. Y., 236; 18 id., 248; Bicharás v. Sperry, 2 Wis., 216; 7 id., 425, 527; 8 id., 255.
    
      Blair Coleman, for defendant in error.
   Paine, J.

This action was brought for an injury to the plaintiff’s daughter, occasioned by the horses of the defendant while running away. The only exception urged here, is to. the refusal of the court to grant the motion for a non-suit. But at the time that motion was made, there was evidence tending to show that the horses were not properly hitched. The evidence of Smith tended to show that. And, in addition to his evidence, the fact that the horses got loose and ran away is some evidence of negligence. It is true, such a thing might occur notwithstanding due care in hitching. But-such would not he the ordinary result; and,' unexplained, the reasonable inference from the fact would be, that there had been negligence in fastening the horses. The motion for a nonsuit was therefore properly overruled.

There is no exception presenting the question, whether, on the whole evidence, the verdict ought to have been sustained.

By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed, with costs.