FRANK COWAN, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM A. SULLIVAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the jury's verdict should be upheld because there was a factual dispute regarding the defendant's knowledge of the pony's dangerous propensities, which is the jury's role to resolve.
The plaintiff's son died after falling from a pony owned by the defendant, who was the plaintiff's landlord. The plaintiff alleged the defendant faile…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
This case arose as the result of a tragic accident in which the plaintiff’s two and one-half year old son, Stacey, died. The plaintiff-appellee and his family were tenants on a ranch owned by defendant-appellant. Shortly after moving to the ranch Mrs. Sullivan obtained permission from the defendant for Stacey to ride the pony, Coca-Cola. For a period of about four months Mrs. Sullivan would place Stacey on the pony and lead him around the yard. On March 12, 1964, the pony broke away from Mrs. Sullivan and began running across the pasture. Stacey’s foot was caught in the stirrup and the child was dragged for some 1500 feet, causing injuries that resulted in his death later that evening.
Approximately a year before the plaintiff moved onto the defendant’s ranch the defendant had purchased this pony from a Mr. Tom Spanos. There was evidence from Mr. Spanos that he had told the defendant that the pony was not a riding pony.
After the accident the plaintiff filed suit against defendant for the death of his son based on defendant’s knowledge that the pony was dangerous and should not be ridden and that he failed to pass this knowledge on to the plaintiff. After hearing the evidence the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $25,000.00.
Subsequently defendant filed this appeal in which he claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. However, after reviewing the evidence presented in this case, it appears that there was a dispute as to whether defendant knew about the pony’s tendency to bolt. It is the jury’s function to resolve conflicts in the facts of a case. Here, the jury made a decision and we are reluctant to substitute our judgment for theirs.
Finding no error in the record of this case, it is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and HOBSON, J.,.concur.