Jackson v. Brantley

Nature of the Case

This lawsuit involved an action for damages brought by Brantley (P) as a result of a collision between car and a horse owned by Jackson (D). Jackson filed a counterclaim. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Brantley and denied recovery on the counterclaim and Jackson appealed.

Facts

Four of Jackson’s horses jumped the fence. Two were captured and secured with halters. The two uncaptured horses were immediately in front of Jackson’s truck but neither he nor his helper attempted to secure them with halters prior to proceeding onto the public highway. Brantley’s automobile appeared around a curve in the highway and approached them. The horses were startled by the headlights of the oncoming car and the two unbridled animals bolted into the road. Brantley’s automobile struck and killed the colt.

Brantley sued and Jackson counterclaimed. The jury rendered a verdict for Brantley and Jackson appealed.

Issue

When a party knows that the consequences of his act are certain or substantially certain to result from his intentional conduct, and he still proceeds, will it be considered that he in fact intended to produce the consequences which in fact occurred?

Holding and Rule of Law

Yes. When a party knows that the consequences of his act are certain or substantially certain to result from his intentional conduct, and he still proceeds, it will be considered that he in fact intended to produce the consequences which in fact occurred.

Jackson contends that Brantley’s evidence at most shows the defendants were negligent or grossly negligent and this is insufficient to carry the burden of proof established by the operative statute. In order for a motorist to recover, his proof must demonstrate more than negligence or gross carelessness on the part of the defendant. The statute imposes liability on the owner of livestock for torts which are intentional, i.e., those in which the owner’s conduct is purposeful, willful, deliberate, or knowingly done.

Here there is ample evidence that the livestock was in fact knowingly placed on the public highway. When the defendant knows that the consequences of his act are certain or substantially certain to result from his intentional conduct, and he still proceeds, it is considered that he in fact intended to produce the consequences. Jackson knew that the consequences of his act were certain or substantially certain to result from leading the horses onto the public road. Contributory negligence, as a matter of law, is not a defense to an intentional tort of this kind.

Disposition

Affirmed.