McCleary v. Frantz
McCleary v. Frantz
Opinion of the Court
In view of the testimony, this was clearly a ease for the exclusive consideration of the jury on the questions of negligence and contributory negligence. Belonging, as it does, to that large class of personal injury cases, wherein the standard of duty is variable and shifts with the facts developed on the trial, it became a question of fact for the jury to determine whether, in the circumstances, a reasonable and proper degree of care was exercised. The case was accordingly submitted to the jury by the learned president of the common pleas in a clear and concise charge in which they were fully and accurately instructed as to the law applicable to every phase of the testimony. We find no error in either of the rulings complained of in the specifications.
J udgment 'affirmed.
Reference
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Negligence — Shifting measure of duty — Question for jury — Negligent shooting. Where the standard of duty is variable and shifts with the facts developed on the trial, it is a question of fact for the jury to determine under the circumstances, whether a reasonable and proper degree of care was exercised. In an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligent firing of a shotgun, it is proper to submit the case to the jury where there is evidence that plaintiff and defendant and two other persons went hunting; that they discussed the danger of four persons hunting together; that, after the discussion, three of the party, leaving plaintiff behind, crossed a ridge, over which plaintiff would have to.go in order to rejoin them; and that defendant, having stirred up a rabbit, turned and shot his gun backward towards the crest of the hill, just as plaintiff was about to cross it, thereby wounding him.