Stark v. Bredahl

The defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to change the answers of the jury relating to *602negligence, causation, and reasonable anticipation, respectively, and that the court should have granted a new trial because the court erred to the prejudice of the defendant in refusing to receive in evidence a certain bill or poster which advertised the defendant’s stallion, and which contained in bold-faced type the following words: “Mares Bred at Owner’s Risk.”

The law applicable to actions like this is well settled. See 2 Am. Jur. p. 724, § 40, where the applicable rule is thus stated:

“Neg…