Karcher v. Fiss, Doerr & Carroll Horse Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, the Fiss, Doerr & Carroll Horse Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 8th day of Hovember, 1907, Upon the verdict of a jury for $1,200, and also from an order entéred in said-clerk’s office on the 6th day of Hovember, 1907, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minntés. The action is for negligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendant, the Fiss, Doerr & Carroll Horse Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 8th day of Hovember, 1907, Upon the verdict of a jury for $1,200, and also from an order entéred in said-clerk’s office on the 6th day of Hovember, 1907, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minntés. The action is for negligence. The defendant is a dealer in horses, and has auction' sales of horses in its horse market. The auction takes place in a very large room. The persons…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaynor, J. :
To hit the horses with a whip to stir them up was not negligence. But thelearned trial Judge sent the caseto the jury to find whether it was negligence to hit the horse with the horsewhip while he was turning; because if he kicked out in that position he would kick toward the line. How whether it was negligence depends on whether in due care and foresight it was to be anticipated that a horse might kick out behind when given a severe cut of a horsewhip. A horse that will do it is an exception, and the rule of due care does not ordinarily require us to regulate our conduct on…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Finley v. ConlanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912