Brown v. Thorne

Citations

• 61 Wash. 18
• 111 P. 1047
• 1910 Wash. LEXIS 1275

Syllabus

<p>Trial — Verdicts—Special Verdicts — Inconsistency. In an action for injuries sustained tbrougli the fright of plaintiff’s horse on the approach of an automobile, a general verdict is not inconsistent with special findings in that the latter did not determine the specific cause of the horse’s fright; it being immaterial whether the noise, excessive speed, or sudden appearance was the cause.</p> <p>Highways — Automobiles—Negligence—Failing to Stop. Negligence in failing to stop an automobile, upon signal by the driver of a horse that had taken fright, is sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff, even though the other grounds of negligence were not made out.</p> <p>Same — Negligence—Noises. The right to operate an automobile carries the right to make the usual noises incident thereto.</p> <p>Same — Negligence—Failing to Stop — Pbesumetion. Where a horse has been excited and became unmanageable, it is the duty of the operator of an automobile to' stop the machine, as it is presumed to be always under control.</p> <p>Same — Notice of Road. • The driver of an automobile must take notice of the road, and it is his duty to stop on signal, if he can without accident, when requested to do so by the driver of a horse not under control.</p>