Rublewsky v. Callahan

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Rublewsky v. Callahan

65 A.2d 858, 3 N.J. Super. 200, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 908

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedMay 5, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.2d 858 (Rublewsky v. Callahan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rublewsky v. Callahan, 65 A.2d 858, 3 N.J. Super. 200, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 908 (N.J. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages to his automobile as a result of colliding with a horse owned by the defendant. The trial resulted in a judgment for defendant in the Middlesex County District Court.

The facts are that the plaintiff was driving his car along a forty foot wide highway at about 1 A.M. at thirty to thirty-five miles per hour when the defendant's horse suddenly came from the bushes to plaintiff's right. The plaintiff first saw the horse some fifteen or twenty feet in front of his car, applied the brakes, swerved to the left and after striking the horse went about seventy-five feet before coming to a stop. At 7 P.M. the previous evening, the defendant, after feeding and watering the horse, put him in a stall, put two 2 x 4 bars across the entrance to the stall, inserting the ends in angle irons attached to each side of the stall, closed and latched the stable door, closed the gate leading to the stable and locked the gate of the iron fence which encloses the stable.

From the evidence the court could find that the measures taken by the defendant were those of a reasonably prudent person, bearing in mind that the animal had never displayed any vicious tendencies or previously broken out of its stall. We will not disturb such a finding of fact.

The judgment under appeal is affirmed. *Page 202

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

Plaintiff brought suit to recover damages to his automobile as a result of colliding with a horse owned by the defendant. The trial resulted in a judgment for defendant in the Middlesex County District Court.

The facts are that the plaintiff was driving his car along a forty foot wide highway at about 1 A.M. at thirty to thirty-five miles per hour when the defendant's horse suddenly came from the bushes to plaintiff's right. The plaintiff first saw the horse some fifteen or twenty feet in front of his car, applied the brakes, swerved to the left and after striking the horse went about seventy-five feet before coming to a stop. At 7 P.M. the previous evening, the defendant, after feeding and watering the horse, put him in a stall, put two 2 x 4 bars across the entrance to the stall, inserting the ends in angle irons attached to each side of the stall, closed and latched the stable door, closed the gate leading to the stable and locked the gate of the iron fence which encloses the stable.

From the evidence the court could find that the measures taken by the defendant were those of a reasonably prudent person, bearing in mind that the animal had never displayed any vicious tendencies or previously broken out of its stall. We will not disturb such a finding of fact.

The judgment under appeal is affirmed. *Page 202

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.2d 858, 3 N.J. Super. 200, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rublewsky-v-callahan-njsuperctappdiv-1949.