Case Name: WOODWARD v. LOOMIS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-07-23
Citations: 71 N.Y.S. 690
Docket Number: 
Parties: WOODWARD v. LOOMIS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 71
Pages: 690–692

Head Matter:
(64 App. Div. 27.)
WOODWARD v. LOOMIS et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 23, 1901.)
Animals—Personal Injuries—Viciousness—Evidence.
Where, in an action for injuries by a- horse, the issue is whether the horse was vicious and defendant knew of it, evidence as to the horse’s disposition during several months after the injury is incompetent.
Williams, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Erie county.
Action by Lyman B. Woodward against Alvin I. Loomis and others. Prom a judgment for defendants, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued before ADAMS, P. J., and McLENNAN, SPRING, WILLIAMS, and RUMSEY, JJ.
Albert G. Thorne and Wallace Thayer, for appellant.
Adolph Rebadow, for respondents.

Opinion:
RUMSEY, J.
The action is brought to recover damages which the plaintiff suffered by the kick of a horse belonging to the.defendants, which he was engaged in driving for them. The serious question litigated was whether the horse was vicious, and whether tiie defendants knew it. There was considerable testimony on each side. The defendants had a verdict. After the horse had kicked the plaintiff, he was sold by the defendants to one Myers, who, having been sworn as a witness, testified that he had owned him for some months. He w'as then asked what kind of disposition the horse had, which was objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and as calling for a description of the horse long after the accident. The evidence was received over the objection thus taken by the plaintiff, and the witness answered that he was a good-dispositioned horse, in his judgment, and that he never saw him kick at' anything unless he was playing around. This evidence was clearly incompetent. Buckley v. Leonard, 4 Denio, 500; Kissam v. Jones, 56 Hun, 432, 10 N. Y. Supp. 94. We are not able to say that the evidence did no harm, because it was addressed to the precise question at issue, and which was strongly contested upon the trial.
For this error, the judgment and order should be reversed, with costs to the appellant to abide the result of the action. All concur, except WILLIAMS, J., who dissents.