Court Opinion

ID: 9557960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:05.902831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:58.985235
License: Public Domain

HOLOHAN, Justice
(dissenting).
There is much in the majority opinion with which I agree, but I dissent from the result and conclusion reached by the majority affirming judgment N.O.V. in favor of defendant Noyes. I agree with the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeals which reversed the superior court’s action in setting aside the jury verdict for the plaintiff.
The Court is in agreement that the principles of law are correctly stated in the Restatement of Torts § 518, but the differences arise in determining whether the harm caused was of the sort which was normal for animals of this class.
The Restatement comment on subsection b of § 518(1) seems to be at variance with the majority’s position:
“d. This Subsection is applicable to those domestic animals of a class which can be confined to the premises of their keepers or otherwise kept under constant control without seriously affecting their usefulness and which are not abnormally dangerous. While the utility of such animals is sufficient to justify their being kept without risk of the strict liability stated in § 509, many of them are recognizably likely to do substantial harm while out of control and, therefore, their keepers are under a duty to exercise reasonable care to have them under a constant and effective control. Thus, there is a likelihood that even a well-broken mare or gelding which had never shown a propensity to bite or kick may do so when running loose. This is sufficient to require its keeper to exercise reasonable care to keep it under constant control.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The majority finds no foundation to support the Court of Appeals position that horses have, as a normal trait, a propensity to fight and bite each other. Apparently the majority also disagrees with the authorities from other states which support the position of the Court of Appeals in this case. See Finneran v. Wood, 249 Md. 643, 241 A.2d 579 (1968); Smith v. Benson’s Wild Animal Farm, 109 A.2d 39 (N.H. 1954).
In Finneran the Maryland Court of Appeals noted:
“. . . That horses are not especially intelligent, that they are easily startled or frightened, that their principal means of defense is to kick, although not now widely known, have for centuries been among the simple facts of life. . Whether mares are unaware of the melancholy plight of geldings is a matter beyond our ken but that mares sometimes will kick at frisky male horses, whether gelded or not, is fairly common knowledge.” 241 A.2d at 581, 582.
While the majority is not aware of the propensity of horses to fight and bite each other, at least one standard reference recognizes the characteristic. In the World *242Book Encyclopedia, vol. 9, at 315, 316, the following is stated:
“Horses are timid and easily frightened. But they can be taught to trust man, and to depend on him. A horse • may often be frightened by the appearance of a strange object. Its fear disappears quickly if it is allowed to sniff the object while someone reassures it quietly-
“Horses have strong likes and dislikes, especially toward other horses. Before horses are teamed, or worked together, they are usually put in adjoining stalls so they can become used to each other.” (Emphasis supplied.')
It certainly would have been better for evidence to have been offered on the issue of the propensity of horses — especially in view of the difference of viewpoint on this Court. I accept the position of the Court of Appeals that judicial notice can be taken of the characteristics normal for this class of animal. The harm which occurred resulted from actions normal to that class of animal.
CAMERON, C. J., concurs.