Citation Numbers: 89 Pa. Super. 420
Judges: OPINION BY LINN, J., December 10, 1926:
Filed Date: 10/13/1926
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Argued October 13, 1926. Plaintiff, a passenger in a street car in Philadelphia, was injured by appellant's runaway horse, which dashed against the side of the car breaking the window beside the seat occupied by plaintiff. Defendant offered no evidence but moved for binding instructions; the motion was refused and this appeal followed.
The motorman testified that his car was moving south on 19th street, and as it was crossing Snyder Avenue, "I just saw a runaway horse, no wagon attached, only the front wheels and the fifth wheel ...... this runaway horse, no driver with it, was traveling at a terrific rate of speed......" There is no evidence describing how the horse got away from its driver, nothing to indicate whether it had been left unhitched or unattended, or that it was vicious or unroadworthy in any respect whatever. Is the accident itself evidence of defendant's negligence in the care of the horse?
The view of the learned court below appears in the instructions that the jury "may infer from the fact that the horse was running away, unattended, with the shafts and two wheels of the wagon attached to it, [that] the owner of the horse was guilty of negligence." We are constrained to differ from that conclusion.
Negligence must be shown. The owner of a horse is not an insurer against accident: Barshay v. Ice Co.,
The judgment is reversed and here entered for defendant.