Erickson v. Sutherland

Citations

• 69 Pa. Super. 516
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 123

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Animals—Death resulting from run away horses — > Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s husband resulting from the running away of two horses which he was driving, plaintiff is not entitled to recover where the evidence shows that the deceased was in the employ of the defendants, the owners of the horses; that he was an experienced horseman, having been employed for years in using and caring for horses; that the horses were placed in charge of the deceased a few days before the accident ; that there was nothing from their behavior to show that they were vicious; that spectators who saw the deceased driving them before the accident described the horses as acting like well behaved, broken horses; that after the accident they were described as being cool, and not excited or unmanageable when stopped a short distance away; that what started them to run did not appear from the evidence; and that the only evidence tending to charge the defendants with responsibility was an alleged statement by one of them, that he knew the horses were wild and unbroken, and forgot to notify the deceased.</p> <p>In such a case it is essential that the plaintiff should show with some degree of certainty that the condition complained of, was the probable producing cause of the accident. It need not be established by positive proof, but the evidence should be such as to exclude to a reasonable certainty every theory but that the accident occurred because the horses were wild, unbroken, and unroadworthy. The mere proof of the runaway does not of itself imply negligence.</p>