Legal Opinion

Rutherford v. Reilly

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 8, 1951No. Civ. No. 17922PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

HANSON, J. pro tem.

The question here presented is whether the operator of a boarding stable for horses is liable for injuries caused by a horse which escaped from its box stall while its owner was in the act of placing a halter on it preparatory to exercising the horse. Unlike the trial judge we fail to see any legal liability.

*630The controlling facts are undisputed. The defendant riding academy is engaged, among other things, in boarding horses for their owners in its stables—adjacent to which is a riding ring. At the time here involved and for some two months prior thereto the defendant was…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Glen Earl Grigg v. Southern Pacific Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API