Sandy v. Bushey case brief

Sandy v. Bushey case brief
1925

Facts: Plaintiff turned his horses in the pasture of a neighbor which had other horses in this pasture during the season. Plaintiff went to feed his horse and while doing so, was kicked by the defendant’s horse. He wants to recover now for damages as a result of serious injuries; the verdict was for the plaintiff, now court looks at it as a general motion. 

Decision: Overruled, plaintiff still wins. 

Reasoning: Common law says that people cannot recover as a result of injury done by a domestic animal where they have a right to be unless the owner knows that an animal is vicious. During an attack of this nature, the plaintiff only has to prove ownership and that owner knew their animal was vicious. In this jurisdiction, negligence doctrine has not been accepted so they do not want to accept contributory negligence doctrine in the strict sense. Only when a person intentionally brings an injury upon themselves should they nor recover; but slight carelessness does not make sense and have them relieved of all damages. 

Holding: A plaintiff can recover against a defendant who knows that their animal has a propensity for violence as long as the plaintiff did not intentionally contribute to his own injury.