Vincent v. Stinehour
Supreme Court of Vermont
This cause came from the court below upon the following bill of . exceptions: This was an action of trespass for defendant’s driving against and over the plaintiff with his horse and sulkey. Plea, not guilty — and trial by jury.
Read the full summary
This cause came from the court below upon the following bill of . exceptions: This was an action of trespass for defendant’s driving against and over the plaintiff with his horse and sulkey. Plea, not guilty — and trial by jury. The plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove, that he was walking in the road, east of the part usually travelled by carriages, in the town of St. Albans, and that the defendant was travelling the same road with his horse and sulkey, driving fast, and when coming near, the defendant drove out on the east side, in such a manner as to bring his horse in contact with the…
1Opinion of the Court
The' opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
In this case the jury must have found, that the injury suffered by the plaintiff was the result of unavoidable accident, and that there was no want of prudence or care on the part of the defendant. They were instructed by the court, that if they found these to be the facts, their verdict must be for the defendant.
The plaintiff contends in this case, that the injury arose from the unlawful act of the defendant. This, however, is taking for granted the very point in dispute. If the act which occasioned the injury to the plaintiff was…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Lovelace v. Travelers' Protective Ass'nSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Lewis v. Flint & Pere Marquette Ry Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Burroughs v. Housatonic RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
- Wright v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Bahel v. ManningMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.