Rumsey v. Nelson
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass on the case. Trial by jury, April Term, 1885, Taet, J., presiding. Verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant’s fourth request was: “It does not follow as a matter of law that a neglect to hitch the horse was negligence; nor can it be said as matter of fact that that was negligence. That would depend upon the habits of the horse in this respect.”
Read the full summary
Trespass on the case. Trial by jury, April Term, 1885, Taet, J., presiding. Verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant’s fourth request was: “It does not follow as a matter of law that a neglect to hitch the horse was negligence; nor can it be said as matter of fact that that was negligence. That would depend upon the habits of the horse in this respect.” The tenth request was: “That if the jury find that the horse was hitched in a way that was sufficient and prudent for a horse which had no habit of breaking away, the plaintiff cannot recover under the third count; because that count contains…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, Ch. J.
The averments in the count upon which the verdict and judgment were rendered were in substance, that upon the day named the plaintiff was lawfully riding in his wagon over and upon a certain highway in Burlington, and that the defendant, being the owner of a certain horse and wagon, then and there being under the control and management of his servant, that said horse was by said servant left so carelessly, negligently, and insecurely tied and hitched and unattended, that, in consequence thereof, he broke away with said wagon and ran…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Murdock v. New York & Boston Despatch Express Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
- Roberts v. Griffith Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
- Caughlin v. Campbell-Sell Baking Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1907
- Belles v. KellnerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1902