Baugher v. Harman

Citations

• 110 Va. 316
• 66 S.E. 86
• 1909 Va. LEXIS 145

Syllabus

<p>1. Automobiles—Fright of Horse—Negligence.—The owner of an automobile who is running his machine in a careful manner, at a slow rate of speed, along a city street thronged with travelers and vehicles, and keeping a lookout to avoid accidents, is not liable for an injury inflicted by a horse taking fright thereat, when he was not aware of any danger from said fright until his machine had reached a point opposite to or had passed the horse’s head, and then deemed it less dangerous to pass on than to stop, and when the horse was in charge of three ablebodied men, and there was nothing in its behavior to lead him to suppose that it would become unmanageable.</p> <p>2. Automobiles—Fright of Horse—Emergency—Negligence of Plaintiff. It is reasonable to presume that the fright of a horse will be increased by stopping an automobile just opposite to him, rather than by passing on by; and if the driver of the machine passes on he is not responsible for the damages inflicted by the horse where the emergency in which he was placed was oceassioned by the imprudence of the plaintiff in undertaking to hitch the horse, which was “automobile shy,” to a buck-board, in a crowded street, when there were other suitable places to hitch him in the immediate vicinity,</p> <p>3. Negligence—Burden of Proof—Degree of Evidence—Verdict.—The burden of proving actionable negligence is primarily upon the plaintiff, who must establish it by affirmative evidence showing more than a mere probability of a negligent act. Its existence cannot be left entirely to conjecture, and the tentative conclusions of juries based upon no sure grounds of inference cannot be upheld. This doctrine is not in conflict with the rule that the verdict of a jury on a question of negligence ought not to be disturbed where the evidence is such that reasonable men may fairly differ as to whether or not there was such negligence.</p>