Stonecipher v. Booth & Flinn, Ltd.

Citations

• 51 Pa. Super. 50
• 1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 176

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Fright of horse — Depositing stump on road — Contributory negligence — Choice of route — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action against a firm of road contractors to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of a horse frightening at a stump which the defendants had left in a public road, the question of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is for the jury, and a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained, where the evidence shows that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was driving a roadworthy, and very quiet horse which she had been accustomed to drive for a considerable time; that she passed over the road and by the stump earlier in the day without any difficulty; that the stump was located on the margin of the road and partly on the wagonway with root face looking towards the plaintiff as she returned; that her view of the stump was a very short one on the way down, but in returning she could see it for about 150 feet; that on her return when she was nearly opposite the stump the horse frightened and she was thrown from the buggy; that there was another route by which the plaintiff could have returned home, but that it was twice as long and unfamiliar to the plaintiff; and that the condition of the other route was not disclosed by the testimony.</p> <p>2. One using a highway which is open for public travel is not necessarily guilty of negligence because he does not take another and safer route. Where the danger is so great and imminent that a person of ordinary prudence would avoid it, the court may say, as a matter of law, that the use of the more dangerous way is an act of negligence, but it is only when this imminent and obvious danger is clearly made to appear that the court can so act.</p>