Court Opinion

ID: 9831777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:21:08.209801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.878498
License: Public Domain

COBBS, J.
Appellee brought this suit to recover of appellant damages to the extent of $198.50 for injuries caused to appellee’s horse in carelessly, negligently and recklessly permitting its telephone wires to hang upon the premises of appellee so that his horse, of the reasonable market value of $150.00, became entangled in the telephone wire, and was injured by the wire cutting the foreleg and tendons at the knee to such an extent that he has become wholly valueless to ap-pellee, damaging him in the sum of $198.50 including therein the expense and cost of caring for him in his injured condition.
The case was submitted to the jury on special issues. The jury found that appellant was guilty of negligence in permitting its telephone wire to be sagged and remain on the ground. They found the market value of the horse on the 10th day of August, 1921, prior to the injury in Gillespie county, was of the market value of $125, and its market value on the 10th day of August, 1921, just after the injury, “Nothing”; that the reasonable cost, expense, and care during the time of his injury was $38; that he had no market value on the day of the trial. This last answer was in response to appellant’s question, and again'in response to another of appellant’s questions found that it was necessary for apj>ellee to have spent the amount of money for carbolic acid, healing oil, antiseptics; worm medicine, castile soap, and extra feed. Upon the findings of the jury, a judgment was entered in favor of appellee for $163.50 against appellant. ¾⅜
[1] Appellants complain that the court eyred in not submitting to the jury the question for them to answer whether or not the telephone wire caused the injury. There was no error in that; the testimony fully established the fact that the horse was injured as alleged by getting entangled in the telephone wire, causing the injury to the horse. The horse was seen entangled in the wire, the horse bled from it, the injury showed for itself, and the proof established squarely it was caused by the wire; therefore uncontra-dicted as to the severe injury. There was no issue for the jury to find as to whether or not the telephone wire caused it, which is obvious.
[2] There is no error in the answer, “Nothing,” of the jury in reply to appellant’s questions, “What is the reasonable market value of the horse as of this date?” He meant the horse had no value on that date, and the answer is sufficiently responsive, and in no sense misleading.
This is entirely a fact case, and is one ih which all the material issues were fairly submitted to the jury by proper and legal issues, and’ the jury found them in favor of appellee upon testimony that supports their finding.
We have examined and considered all the assignments, and, believing the case has been fairly tried and no errors of law committed, they are all overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

<&=>For other oases see same topic and KEV-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

<S=>For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes