Quigley v. Adams Express Co.

Citations

• 27 Pa. Super. 116
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 15

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Animals—Bite of a horse — Burden of proof — Declarations— Evidence.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for injuries resulting from the bite of a horse, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that the horse was an animal of vicious habits, and that his vicious propensities were known to the defendant. In such a case declarations of a person purporting to be the driver to the effect that the horse had bitten other people, arc insufficient in themselves to submit to the jury on the question of the viciousness of the horse, and the knowledge of the defendant, where it does not appear that the person making the declaration was present when the biting occurred, and that he made the statement after the plaintiff had gone to a hospital to have his wound dressed, and had returned therefrom.</p>