Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceverdictsustained
plaintiffdefendantverdictmotion

Related Cases

Ruiz v. Killebrew, 459 P.3d 1005, 2020 UT 6
View Case »
Thompson v. Modern School of Business and Correspondence, 183 Cal. 112, 190 P. 451
View Case »
McComish v. DeSoi, 42 N.J. 274, 200 A.2d 116
View Case »
Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, 337 Conn. 27, 251 A.3d 583
View Case »
Miller v. Willbanks, 8 S.W.3d 607
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Vezina v. Souliere, 103 Vt. 190, 152 A. 798

Facts

The plaintiff, Henry J. Vezina, purchased a horse from the defendant, Delphis Souliere, who falsely represented the horse as gentle and safe for farm work. Despite being informed by the defendant's brother that the horse was a kicker, Vezina relied on Souliere's assurances and continued to use the horse. After the horse kicked Vezina's son and later Vezina himself, he sought damages for personal injuries and the purchase price of the horse.

It appeared in the instant case that a short time before the plaintiff traded for the horse he saw him in defendant's sales stable at Orleans; that defendant's brother was then in charge of the stable and was caring for the horses; that plaintiff noticed that he did not 'comb' this one as he did the others and inquired why and was told that this horse was a kicker, a bad horse, and treacherous.

Issue

Did the plaintiff have sufficient knowledge of the horse's viciousness to bar recovery for personal injuries sustained after the purchase?

The only question for review relates to plaintiff's right to recover the latter amount.

Rule

A vendee cannot recover damages for injuries received from a vicious animal after knowing it is vicious, nor for injuries resulting from their own negligence.

A person cannot recover for injuries received by using a vicious animal after he knows that it is vicious.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the plaintiff had been informed of the horse's kicking propensity and had observed the horse's behavior. Despite this knowledge, the plaintiff continued to use the horse, which led to his injuries. The court concluded that the plaintiff's actions constituted a voluntary assumption of risk, thus barring recovery for personal injuries.

With this knowledge respecting the horse, and the defendant's veracity, it is futile to claim that plaintiff relied on defendant's representations in continuing the use of the horse.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment regarding personal injury damages and awarded the plaintiff $175, which was the amount of the verdict minus the personal injury claim.

Judgment reversed, and judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $175, the amount of the verdict less the item for personal injuries, and costs.

Who won?

Delphis Souliere prevailed in the aspect of the personal injury claim because the court found that the plaintiff had knowledge of the horse's viciousness and acted negligently.

The motion as to the second count should have been granted.

You must be