Garner v. Town of East Point

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Garner v. Town of East Point

67 S.E. 847, 7 Ga. App. 630, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 435

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1910

Docket2100

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 67 S.E. 847 (Garner v. Town of East Point) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garner v. Town of East Point, 67 S.E. 847, 7 Ga. App. 630, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 435 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

A, tlie owner of a mule, hired it to B, who placed it in an ordinarily safe inclosure. The mule broke out of this inclosure at night and wandered on to an uninclosed vacant lot of C, then in the possession of D as a tenant. The vacant lot was in the town of East Point. On this vacant lot was an old unprotected well, into which the mule fell, and he was killed. Suit for the value of the mule was brought by A against the town and against B, C, and D, as joint tort-feasors. Held: •The action did not lie, and a nonsuit was properly granted. The town was not liable, because the accident was not on the highway. The owner of the vacant lot, or his tenant, was not liable, because as to them the mule was a trespasser, and they owed no duty to the owner thereof to keep the well inclosed. The hirer of the mule was not liable, because he placed the mule in an ordinarily safe inclosure. The inherent viciousness of the mule alone was the proximate cause of its death, and the ease is damnum absque injuria. . Weeks, Damnum Absque Injuria, § 9; Blyth v. Topham, Cro. Jac. 158; 1 Rol. Ab. 88; Howland v. Vincent, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 371 (43 Am. D. 442). Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hill, C. J.

A, tlie owner of a mule, hired it to B, who placed it in an ordinarily safe inclosure. The mule broke out of this inclosure at night and wandered on to an uninclosed vacant lot of C, then in the possession of D as a tenant. The vacant lot was in the town of East Point. On this vacant lot was an old unprotected well, into which the mule fell, and he was killed. Suit for the value of the mule was brought by A against the town and against B, C, and D, as joint tort-feasors. Held: •The action did not lie, and a nonsuit was properly granted. The town was not liable, because the accident was not on the highway. The owner of the vacant lot, or his tenant, was not liable, because as to them the mule was a trespasser, and they owed no duty to the owner thereof to keep the well inclosed. The hirer of the mule was not liable, because he placed the mule in an ordinarily safe inclosure. The inherent viciousness of the mule alone was the proximate cause of its death, and the ease is damnum absque injuria. . Weeks, Damnum Absque Injuria, § 9; Blyth v. Topham, Cro. Jac. 158; 1 Rol. Ab. 88; Howland v. Vincent, 10 Metc. (Mass.) 371 (43 Am. D. 442). Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 847, 7 Ga. App. 630, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garner-v-town-of-east-point-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack