Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffnegligenceverdictbailcontractual obligation

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceverdicttestimonybail

Related Cases

Stacy v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 84 Wis. 614, 54 N.W. 1091

Facts

In February 1891, the Knickerbocker Ice Company hired a span of horses from Benjamin F. Stacy for use in their ice-cutting operations. The horses were driven by an employee named Clifford, who, while attempting to hitch them to a scraper, lost control as the horses became frightened. They ran onto thin ice that had recently formed over a previously cleared area, broke through, and drowned. The court directed a verdict for the ice company after concluding that the evidence did not support a finding of negligence.

In February, 1891, the defendant ice company was engaged in cutting and removing into icehouses the ice formed in Fowler lake, in Oconomowoc, and hired of plaintiff a span of horses for use in that business. The horses broke through the thin ice, and both were drowned.

Issue

Was the Knickerbocker Ice Company negligent in the handling of the horses that resulted in their drowning?

Rule

A bailee for hire is only liable for the consequences of a lack of ordinary care of the property bailed. If the property is lost or injured without negligence on the part of the bailee, the loss falls upon the owner.

One of these is that a bailee for hire is only liable for the consequences of a want of ordinary care of the property bailed. If such property be injured or lost while in his possession, without negligence or fault on his part, the loss falls upon the owner, not the bailee.

Analysis

The court analyzed the claims of negligence against the ice company, concluding that the company had fulfilled its contractual obligations and that the circumstances leading to the horses' drowning were not due to any lack of ordinary care. The court noted that the horses were uncontrollable and that even if the company had taken the precautions suggested by the plaintiff, such as marking the thin ice, it would not have prevented the incident. The court emphasized that the fright of the horses was the primary cause of their drowning, for which the ice company could not be held responsible.

Upon a careful examination of the case we are unable to find any testimony which would warrant a finding that the ice company was guilty of any negligence whatever which caused or contributed to the loss of plaintiff's horses.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment for the Knickerbocker Ice Company, concluding that there was no evidence of negligence that contributed to the loss of the horses.

The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

Who won?

Knickerbocker Ice Company prevailed because the court found no negligence on their part that contributed to the drowning of the horses.

The court directed a verdict for the ice company.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

O’Donnell v. Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co., 171 F.2d 973

Sox v. Hertz Corp., 262 F.Supp. 531, 10 Fed.R.Serv.2d 215

Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9, 403 P.2d 145, 45 Cal.Rptr. 17, 2 UCC Rep.Serv. 915

Jarrett v. Jones, 258 S.W.3d 442

Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 161, 1864 WL 724