The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-09-18
HARTS1EIu Won
ON HIS APPEAL
WELL KNOWN CASE TRIED IN
DISTRICT COURT LAST YEAR,
CAUSED BY PfckETlNG HORSE
WEST OF CITY, WAS REVERSED
BY SUPREME COURT.

The well known case of Margaret
Garraghty against Bert Hartstein,
which provoked much comment in leg
al circles more than yea ago in the
district court, and which was appealed
by the defendant, who lost the suit,
was reversed by the North Dakota SUI
preme court today with directions to
dismiss the action.
The action involved a question Of
damages for an injury sustained by
the plaintiff, resulting from q horse
being picketed for grazing on the west
ern outskirts of the city. In the dis
trict court the decision was awarded
the plaintiff and the defendant appeal
ed the case. Today the decision was
reversed by the supreme court with
direction to dismiss the action. Fol-
lowing is the syllabus by the court
with the opinion by Judge Fisk.
In the Supreme Court, State of
North Dakota.
Margaret Garraghty, plaintiff and
respondent, VS.. Bert Hartstein, de-
PENDANT and appellant.
/. Plaintiff was injured by a picket
pin which was attached to one end of
a rope used to picket a horse on GER
tain vacant lots Immediately east Of
her home. The end of the o fasten-
ed to the picket pin was wound three
end being fastened to the halter Of the
horse. Between such post and the
horse there was a public road or trail
and the injury happened while de-
PENDANTS servants were driving his
horse and vehicle along the side of
such trail. The horse drawing such
vehicle being driven on a fast trot
n in contact with tho njckpt rome
causing the same to unwind from the
post, throwing the pin violently
against plaintiffs arm. Evidence ex-
amined and held, as a matter Of law,
that the question of the negligence of
defendants servants was enormously
submitted to the jury. Z
2. Usually it is the province Of the
jury, under proper instructions. to
say from the facts and circumstances
disclosed, whether due care was or
was not exercised, or, in other words,
whether negligence ought to be infer
red; but it is always not only the
province but the duty Of the court,
first, to determine, as a matter of law,
whether, upon the facts most favora-
BILE to the plaintiff, negligence can
properly be inferred. The jury cannot
be permitted to arbitrarily and with
out evidence, infer negligence. The
evidence must affirmatively establish
some circumstances from which the
inference fairly arises that the injury
resulted from the want Of some pre-
caution which the defendant ought to
have taken.
3. If a person has no reasonable
ground to anticipate that a particular
act would or might result in injury to
anybody, such act is not negligent. On
the contrary, if the act is one which
the party ought, in the exercise of or
binary care, to have anticipated was
liable to result in injury to others,
then he is liable for any injury ap-
proximately resulting from it, al
though he could not have anticipated
the particular injury which did hap
pen. ..'
(Syllabus by the court.) ~ -.
Appeal from district court, Cass
county, Charles A. Pollock, J. "
From a judgment in plaintiffs favor
and from an order denying defend
ants motion for judgment non OBJ
stante, or for a new trial, defendant
appeals. '.... ..... ..
Reversed with directions to dismiss
the action. Opinion, of the court by
Fisk. J. -. .. ~-.t
Pollock & Pollock, Fargo, N, D, for
appellant; M. A, Hildreth, Fargo, N.
D., for respondent. .. ~