Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-09-09

bound to exercise towards persons
travelling the highway crossings, the |
care, skill and diligence that. men
of ordinary prudence would use I'M
der the circumstances, having due re-
gard to the rights of those attempt
ing to pass. Evidence that other
horses were frightened by the noise
c. the steam from the locomotive was
held to be proper.
In Crocker VS.. McGregor, rs Me.
2S3, there was verdict for the plain
tiff for an injury caused by the fright
of her horse by steam escaping form
the defendants mill situated on the
margin of the public highway. Wit
nesses were properly allowed to tes-
tify that other horses passing were
frightened by the escaping steam.
In Bemis Temple. 1872 Mass, 34s
the case was reversed because the
trial court rejected evidence that
other gentle horses had been fright
ened b. the campaign flag suspended
across the street, and the principle
that proof of other accidents will not
be received was held inapplicable
The court said: This precise ques
ton has been decided in favor of
plaintiffs contention by many courts
of the highest responsibility, and we
have been referred to no decision TO
the contrary In Brown " Eastern &
Midlands Railway, % @. b. D. 391,
1893, which was an action for an in
jury caused by the shying of the plain
tiff's horse at heap of dirt, the Court
of Queens Bench held that the plain
tiff was rightly permitted to show
that various other horses had previous
ly SHE'D at the same place and all the
judges Of the Court of Appeal were
clearly of opinion that the evidence
was admissible, and affirmed the de-
cision of the Queens Bench Division
House V. Metcalf, 81 Conn. 631, was
suit for maintaining wheel which
frightened the plaintiffs horse The
court says the plaintiff ''had a right,
not only to show the facts regarding
its size, from, location, exposure to
: view, and mode of operation from
which the jury might infer what eff
fects it would naturally, necessarily,
or probably produce, but also to prove
what effects it had produced in fact.
The inquiry into every such case is,
, not whether the evidence offered is
sufficient to prove the fact claimed,
but whether it tends to prove 1t. -
In Darling VS.. WestmOreland, SO N. H
: 4O1. suit for damages caused by the
, fright OF horse at a pile of lumber.
{ evidence was received that othe.
horses had been frightened by the
same pile. The justices of the Su-
: preme Court of New York who sat ir
: Champlin v. Penn Yam, "a Hun. 81
: ~, unanimously sustained the admis
/, sion OF evidence "that on another o..
70
similar to this in appearance. suspend
: ed over the same street and in SINH.
, lar manner, did brighten other horses
, when driven along the street under
! the same" The Court of Appeals OF
}. New York takes a similar view of the
4 law Quinlan " Utica, IL Hun. 217:
E S. c. IA, N. Y. 603 Wooley v. Gran j
y Street and Newtown Railroad. az N
Y l21."
r In Topeka Water Co.. v. Whiting
+ 90 Kan. 639 the plaintiff was driving
4 on the street when the horse became
f frightened at the water squirting from
If a hydrant about one hundred fee
:. away, turned suddenly and capsize.
the buggy. She received a broke,
+ arm and other injuries. The f1owin
. water could have been seen five hur
: dred feet away, but was not notice,
; by her until the time the horse turn
d ed. There was proof that three othe
f driving horses had been frightened
:. IL was held that the license granite,
n by the municipality to the Waite
AZ Company to place mains and hydrant
n. and to flush carried with it the oh
W hgatlon to do so with reasonable cav
b. and in such manner as not to INNER
te the safety of those passing. and tina
lg whether an object is calculated I
n brighten gentle horse is usually
lg question for the jury. A verdict fo
five thousand dollars was sustained
R. Otter cases UNFOLDING proof of til
a benavlor OF other horses and sustai.
Is ing the recovery of damages are:
es Folsom v. R. r. 68 N H., 461.
or Thomas v. Springfield, Utah, 49,
re Croker v. McGregor, 76 Me. 2S4
lie Potter v. Natural Gas Co., 1873 p.
IN St SIS
&c Stone v. Pendleton, q r. I. 333.
;e House " Metcalf, 81 Conn. 632.
a. Tonlinson " Derby, 43 Conn. Sc:
~ Smith v. Sherwood, 66 Mich. 159.
of Darling v. Westmoreland, Sc N. (
ID 4O1.
as Nye v. Dibley, SO MINI. 466.
ii Nor are we able to say that the We,
ty dict is excessive. Is Cyc. 1885,
:, There was evidence indicating som
mental suffering as wei as to the il
K. jury to the arm and physical disabii
e ty and, saddest of all, tending to sho'
lg an impairment Of the mind whic
ne probably no rational man would war
e to undergo for the amount of tn
le Judgment. 1t is unnecessary to revel
he to other suggestions made in the ell,
r. borate and interesting briefs.
ct We are still satisfied with the CO
OF rectness of the opinion as original
ut rendered herein, and it and the jud,
ne ment and order Of the district coui
lie are af1irmed.
N Remittitur forthwith
Ell Talbot. J.
Mt I concur