ACTIONS.

See Master and Servant, 45 et seq. ACT OF GOD.

See Municipal Corporations, 11.

AGE.

Misrepresentation as to age of servant as affecting relation of master and servant, see Master and Servant, 1. AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS.

1. Injury to Patron; Balloon Ascension; Act of Independent Contractor.

The fact that an agricultural association employed an independent contractor to give an aeronautic exhibition at it fair, does not relieve it from liability to one injured by the descent of the balloon which the operator had left in midair by the aid of a parachute. Canney v. Rochester Agricultural & Mechanical Ass'n, N. II.

AMUSEMENTS.

1. Duty of Proprietor as to Care. Where one undertakes to render a service by furnishing accommodations of a public nature, the law imposes a duty to use proper care, precaution, and diligence in providing and maintaining the accommodations in a reasonably safe condition for the purposes to which they are adapted and are apparently designed to be used. Turlington v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla. .....1:490

The proprietor of an amusement park, to which the public is invited, must exercise reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe for visitors, whether admission is charged to the grounds or not. Turgeon v. Connecticut Co., 81 Conn. 538..... ..1:609

Liability of master for injury by sportive act of servant, see Master and Servant, 27.

Proof of prior accidents by fall of balloon, see Evidence, 3.

If accommodations afforded to the public for hire are not reasonably suitable and safe for the purpose for which they may ordinarily and apparently be used in a customary way, the public should be excluded from their use, or appropriate notice of their unsuitable

Compensatory Damages. A failure to perform a duty due to the public in furnishing public accommodations may be negligence that, if it proximately results in injury to another without his fault, will constitute a cause of action for compensatory damages. Turlington v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla. ....1:490

Where, by virtue of the relation towards each other existing between parties, the law implies a duty from one to the other, a breach of that duty by one that proximately causes or contributes to causing a substantial injury

4. Miniature Railway; Derailment of
Engine; Injury to Patron.

A nonsuit should not be granted in
an action to recover damages for per-
sonal injuries sustained when an en-
gine operated on a miniature railroad
jumped the track, where the evidence
discloses that the roadbed was in bad
condition and that, although the en-
gine had frequently left the track at
the curve where the accident occurred
and where people were likely to be as
sembled, no guard rail had been erect-
ed or warning given. Turgeon v. Con-
necticut Co., 84 Conn. 538......1:609

for hire of such place exists between
two parties, it is the duty of such
keeper to exercise proper care, pre-
caution, and diligence to provide and
maintain a reasonably suitable and
safe springboard, and water of reason-
ably suitable and safe depth under
and about the springboard, free from
obstructions or other dangers to com-
fort and safety in the ordinary and
customary use of such diving and
swimming place, and, if the place is
not reasonably safe, the public should
be excluded from its use or appro-
priately warned of its dangers, other-
wise the keeper may be negligent for
which an action lies by one proximate-
ly injured by the negligence. Turling
ton v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla. -.
1:491

-

Allegations that, owing to the fact
that the water under a springboard
kept and used for hire as a public
diving place was about 21⁄2 feet to
311⁄2 feet deep, it in fact constituted
a dangerous place to those resorting
there for bathing and diving, that the
defendant negligently suffered the
same to be and remain in the danger-
ous condition, and that by means
whereof the plaintiff's decedent with-
out his fault was injured, state a cause
of action. Turlington v. Tampa Elec-
tric Co., Fla.
...1:491

7.

-

Insufficiency of Proof of Negli-
gence, Contributory Negligence.
Where the negligence of the keeper
for hire of a public diving and bathing
place that proximately caused injury
to another as alleged is not proven by
the plaintiff, or if it appears that the
injured person was guilty of contribu-
tory negligence, damages cannot be
recovered for the injury. Turlington
v. Tampa Electric Co., Fla., -...

ANIMALS.

-

1:491

Carriage of, see Carriers, 17, 18.
Fright of horse caused by the opera-

tion of automobile, see Automobiles, 4.

Fright of horse at shavings and dust thrown toward horse through blowpipe, see Highways, 9.

1. Savage Horse in Field Crossed by Public.

One who, without giving any warning whatever, places a savage horse with dangerous propensities in a field which he has permitted the public habitually to cross, is liable to a person injured by the animal. Lowery v. Walker, L. R. App. Cas. 10 (1911). 1:215

APPEAL.

Raising on appeal objection as to variance between pleading and proof, see Trial, 7.

1. Question Raised on Appeal; Error. Appellant cannot properly claim that a question submitted to the jury should have been disposed of as matter of law, when to do so would have required that an error be made in his favor. Blanchard v. Vermont Shade Roller Co., 84 Vt. 442.... .1:152

2. Review; Conclusiveness of Findings or Verdict.

A verdict rendered in a negligence action supported by sufficient evidence is conclusive on appeal. Herlitzke v. LaCrosse Interurban Telephone Co., 145 Wis. 185...... ..1:422

The weight of evidence introduced in an action against a terminal carrier to recover damages for injury to a piano, to overcome a presumption that the piano was damaged after it was received from a connecting carrier, is for the jury, and their verdict will not be disturbed on appeal. Parnell v. Atlantic Coast Line K. Co., C.

S. .1:318

A finding on an issue of fact, based on conflicting evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal. Smith v. General Motor Cab Co., App. Cas. 188 (1911). 1:576

3. Exceptions.-Necessity.

An instruction in an action to recover for personal injuries allowing the one injured to recover sums expended and to be expended by him is not erroneous, although there is no evidence of what had been expended, where no exception was taken as to past expenditures and nothing is claimed as to future expenses. Blanchard v. Vermont Shade Roller Co., 84 Vt. 442 ..1:152

A motion to strike a plea relates only to matter in the record proper, and no exception to the ruling thereon is necessary. Southern Turpentine Co. v. Douglass, 61 Fla. 424........1:788

5. Bill of Exceptions; Contents.

A bill of exceptions sufficiently shows that it contains all of the evidence in the case and that it was certified and allowed by the judge, where the bill was O. K'd. by counsel for respondent and the trial judge certified that it was tendered to him with the request that it be signed and sealed and made a part of the record, "all of which is accordingly done," thereby adopting as correct the certificate of the stenog. rapher that the bill of exceptions contained all the evidence. Gregoric v. Percy-Lasalle Mining & Power Co., Colo. -; 122 Pac. 785.........1:715 6. Entry of Judgment

7. Instructions.-Failure to Give.

Failure clearly to charge that the
person inflicting the injury complained
of was a fellow servant, is not prej
udicial, where, even if he were, the
master would still be liable. Blan-
chard v. Vermont Shade Roller Co., 84
Vt. 442..
.1:152

8.

Duty of Party to Request or Call
Attention to Error.

A party will not be heard to com-
plain on appeal of the failure of the
trial court to give an instruction to
the jury regarding the effect of the in-
troduction of the Carlisle Mortality
Tables in evidence in an action to re-
cover damages for personal injuries,
where he failed to request the court to
give such instruction or to call the at-
tention of the court to the omission.
Newingham v. J. C. Blair Co., 232 Pa.
511 ......
.1:163

A party will not be heard to com-
plain on appeal of the error of the
trial judge in misquoting the testi-
mony in his charge to the jury, when
he failed to call the court's attention
to the error before the jury retired.
Newingham v. J. C. Blair Co., 232
Pa. 511...

9. Presumption as to Error.

.1:163

1. Duty of Pedestrian; Reciprocal
Duties.

A pedestrian is not required to “look
and listen" for rapidly moving auto-
mobiles before crossing a street; but
both driver and pedestrian, each rec-
ognizing the rights of the other, are
required to exercise reasonable care.
Ala.
Shebor v. Barbour,
-....1:120

2. License; Connection Between Ab
sence and Injury.

In absence of actual connection be
tween the failure of the driver of an
automobile to procure a license as re-
quired by statute, and an injury caused
by the machine, the driver cannot be
held liable in damages to a child who
was injured by being struck by the
automobile, although the operation of
an automobile on the streets of a city
by a person without a license from the

The owner of an automobile which is being operated by a borrower, though the former is in the car at the time, is not liable, in absence of statute, for personal injuries to a conductor who was standing on the board of a street car, caused by the negligent operation of the machine by the borrower, on the theory that an automobile, being a dangerous machine, the owner must be responsible for the manner in which it is used. Hartley v. Miller, 165 Mich. 116. .1:126

of "noise, appearance, and excessive speed of an automobile," found in answer to the question as to what caused the fright of the horse, and a special verdict of "Yes. Sudden appearance as it came into sight at high speed," found in answer to the question whether it was the appearance or the noise of the automobile which caused the fright. Brown et al. v. Thorne, 61 Wash. 18, 111 Pac. 1047...... .1:10 6. Contributory Negligence.

Contributory negligence is not a defense where the injuries complained of were inflicted by the running of an automobile. Shebor v. Barbour,

Ala.

.1:120