Huff v. Ford
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for damages occasioned by the defendant’s horse kicking a shoe through a window of a store occupied by the plaintiff. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Tort for damages occasioned by the defendant’s horse kicking a shoe through a window of a store occupied by the plaintiff. Answer, a general denial. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., there was evidence tending to show that on August 31,1876, the plaintiff was in the possession and occupancy of a store on Bromfield Street in Boston; that a large plate-glass window of the store was broken by the defendant’s horse kicking a loose shoe through it after he had been violently struck twice -by the driver; that the city was then repaving that street; that the defendant was the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The driver, employed and paid by the defendant, and who had the entire management of the horses as to the manner of driving them, and whose duty it was to see that they were properly shod, was the servant of the defendant in so driving the horses and having them shod; and for injuries to third persons by his negligence in these respects, the defendant was responsible. Whether the damage to the plaintiff’s property was caused by such negligence, or by mere accident, was a question for the jury, and appears to have been submitted to them without objection.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by23 opinions
- Driscoll v. TowleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
- Western Indemnity Co. v. PillsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Shepard v. JacobsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- Oulighan v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Delory v. BlodgettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.