Kenney v. Antonetti

California Supreme Court Jan 8, 1931 No. Docket No. S.F. 14065.Published

Before: Preston

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the presence of unattended livestock on a fenced highway at night creates an inference of negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, establishing a prima facie case that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

Issues

Whether the presence of unattended horses on a fenced highway creates a prima facie case of negligence against the owner.
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to injuries caused by livestock straying onto a public highway.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact that defendants’ horses were unattended upon the highway at night and the other facts adduced by the evidence, considered in the light of the above provisions and the further general rules of negligence applying at all times, clearly gave rise to an inference of negligence here and sufficiently established plaintiff’s prima facie case.”

“The theory of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is that a defendant in charge of an instrumentality which causes injury either knows the cause of the accident or has the best opportunity of ascertaining it”

PRESTON, J.

The judgment of nonsuit entered herein in favor of defendants is hereby reversed.

Plaintiff, a. young woman of twenty-one years, sustained severe and permanent injuries, to wit: Facial sears and loss of right eye, as the result of an automobile accident which occurred in substantially the following manner: She was riding in the front seat of said automobile as guest of the owner and driver. With other guests in the rear, the parties were proceeding home from a dance at about the hour of midnight on February 21, 1927, driving at a reasonable speed along a fenced highway near Santa Cruz, where it adjoined a ranch owned and operated by the defendants. Suddenly two horses, unattended on the road, loomed up ahead of the car; the driver slowed down and succeeded in passing between them, but almost immediately thereafter another horse, invisible in the darkness, jumped in front of the machine and collided with it. The force of the impact turned the car over into a ditch and the aforesaid injuries to- plaintiff resulted.

Plaintiff, by her amended complaint, alleged negligence in general terms, to wit: “That said horse or horses

[338]

was or were among a number of horses that were, through the negligence and gross carelessness of defendants, permitted to remain on said highway or road unattended by any person;” that “said horses were under the control of and owned by defendants” and said highway was “fenced on both sides by a substantial fence”. Defendants answered with a general denial and a charge of contributory negligence. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence the court granted defendants’ motion to strike out the testimony of five witnesses to the effect that they had seen horses, evidently owned by defendants, straying unattended on the highway at the point in question at various times just prior to the accident and further granted a motion by defendants for nonsuit made upon the ground that there was no proof of the material allegations of the complaint or that said horses were controlled or owned by defendants or by their negligence permitted to remain unattended on the highway nor was there evidence sufficient to allow the case to go to the jury. Judgment for defendants followed and plaintiff appealed.

It is the contention of appellant that there .was sufficient evidence on the question of defendants’ negligence to allow the case to go to the jury and that the court erred in striking out said testimony and in granting a nonsuit. In other words, she pleads applicability of the doctrine of

Kenney v. Antonetti

AI Brief

PRESTON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief