Conn v. Hunsberger
Citations
- 224 Pa. 154
- 73 A. 324
- 1909 Pa. LEXIS 744
Syllabus
<p>Bailment — Livery-stable keeper — Implied warranty of fitness of horse— Negligence — Vicious horse.</p> <p>1. The relation between a livery-stable keeper and his customer is that of bailor and bailee for hire, and the former assumes the liability which the contract of bailment imposes. When the bailor lets a horse for hire he impliedly promises or warrants that the animal is fit and suitable for the purpose for which it is hired; he warrants that the horse is not unruly or vicious but is safe, manageable and suitable for the usé for which the customer has hired it.</p> <p>2. It is the duty of a livery-stable keeper to inform himself of the habits and disposition of the horses which he keeps in his stable for hire, and if he knows that they are dangerous and unsuitable or by the exercise of reasonable care could ascertain the fact, he is liable for any injuries to his customers resulting from their vicious propensities. The law will not permit him to close his eyes and his ears, thereby remaining ignorant of the vicious habits of his horses, and relieve him from liability for injuries to a customer resulting from such habits. In his contract of hiring he impliedly engages that he knows or has exercised reasonable care to ascertain the habits of his horses, and says to his customer that the horse which he lets is safe and suitable for the purpose for which he has hired it. His warranty is against defects or vicious habits which he knows or by the exercise of proper care could know, and if he fails to exercise such care and it occasions injury to his customer, he will not be relieved of liability though he did not actually know the horse was unsuitable for the service.</p> <p>3. Where in an action against a livery-stáble keeper to recover damages for injuries caused by the conduct of a horse hired from the defendant by the plaintiff, the latter introduces evidence to the effect that the horse was vicious, wild, and unmanageable, the burden is then imposed upon the d
Judges: Brown, Elicin, Fell, Mesteezat, Mestrezat, Mitchell, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hoffman v. Misericordia HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1970-07-02· cited 199×
- Great Plains Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. DabneySupreme Court of Oklahoma· 1993-01-26· cited 93×
- Palmquist v. MercerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1954-06-25· cited 90×
- Price v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-07-31· cited 57×
- Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-08-11· cited 36×
- Dam v. Lake Aliso Riding SchoolCalifornia Supreme Court· 1936-05-18· cited 30×
- Harris v. Breezy Point Lodge, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1953-01-23· cited 22×
- Koser v. HornbackIdaho Supreme Court· 1954-01-18· cited 18×
- Mateas v. HarveyNinth Circuit· 1945-01-12· cited 11×
- Dorobek v. Ride-A-While StablesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1968-05-28· cited 4×
- Henderson v. Benson-Hartman Motors, Inc.Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas· 1983-11-18· cited 4×
- Price v. BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-04-07· cited 2×
- Francis Eugene Swann and Ellen T. Swann v. David W. Ashton, Doing Business as 'Wells Fargo,' and Buckskin Joe, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1964-02-13· cited 1×
- Dufort v. SmithLuzerne County Court of Common Pleas· 1944-03-29· cited 1×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.