Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1871-01-10
Carrot Foshay.
VS.. rbnrro
Town Of Glen Haven


now call your attention Il ,haso e,r,ho,.
genera instructions in which have .ndeay-
ored TO state briefly In general way some of
the rules and material points TO be Considered
in applying the evidence.
Judge Paine in announcing the opinion of
the Supreme Court when this case was before
that court on appeal lays down tho following
rule IN relation to objects producing fright Of
horses of travellers for which,towns are liable.
| quote "We adopt the rule that objects
within the limits of a highway naturally cal
cula'ed to brighten horses of ordinary gentle
ness may constitute such deficiencies IN the
way as render the town liable even though so
iar removed from the travelled path as 10
"Noiu a danger of collision"
ASSUMING, because the admissions in the
Ileaauins or the proof in which there is no
oIun.Is SHOWS That an accident by which the
plaihlu was more or less injured hannened
ihai me place where it happened was ! NH,
llc highway and tina. the loo. At vvb;cb ~ =
Claimed upon The part Of the plaintiF his
ii. iook irishl, was within the limits Of
thesShishway and not in the Travelled path
that you will have no difficulty in determ;n;nr
these facts, you will have 10 still fnrtbasS
find in order to find verdict for the plaintiF.
FIRST, That the horses were frightened ana
became unmanageable at the sight of the loo
IN question and that the accident and iniurV
were caused by such fright.
SECOND, That it was an object naturally
calculated 70 irighten horses of ordinary gem
tleness.
THIRD, That the plaintiff was in the excl
else OF ordinary care and prudence in harness
ing, managing and driving his horses and
keeping lookout on the road he was travel
ing.
III relation to the second question whether
no 4Hac I'm, nAf -
lated TO frighten horses OF ordinary pentleness.
you have all the evidence in relation TO the
appearance OF the log, its location and all the
testimony relating TO that subject and you will
Judge whether or not il was of the character
ascrIbed TO il BY the plaintiff and defined in
these Instructions
Ia relation TO the question of ordinary care
ma prudence have not been in tie habit of
saying much in defining the meaning of the
Term In cons dering it you will remember
the instructions | have given and this further
aehnItlon OF the term, that it is such care and
prudence as men of ordinary caution and pru-
'ehce observe IN managing their affairs and
conducting their business. In its more spe-
clhc application to this case it would be such
care and prudence as men generally of ordi-
nary caution and prudence observe in relation
! TO the character and habits af the teams thew
arlVe upon the public highways-in harness
ing and driving them and in looking out for
defects in the highways they travel and for
| OBJECTS calculated 70 brighten their horses.
Unless you find for the plaintiff in view Of
these Instructions and the evidence-the law
and the testimony your enquiries will end
and verdict for the defendant must result.
But if you find for the plaintiff il will be in
cumpent upon you to assess his damages. In
assessing Them you ought TO give such sum at
least as shall be fully Compensatory for loss of
time, injury to team, wagon and harness and
expenses incurred for necessary medical at
tendance during his sickness. You cannot. if
you regard your oaths, do less than make full
compensation In addition you may give such
further sum as you think in the exercise Of
sound judgment aud discretion should be Civ
en- for pain and suffering endured as the result
of the injury.