Jackson v. Brantley
Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
378 So. 2d 1109 (1979)
- Written by Brian Meadors, JD
Facts
Jackson (defendant) owned horses. Four of the horses escaped. Jackson and a helper began rounding up the horses and were able to secure two. The other two remained loose. The helper led the two secured horses down the shoulder of the Mitchell-Young Road, a public highway. The helper, who had considerable experience with horses, was substantially certain the loose horses would follow the two secured horses. As the two secured horses were being led, the two loose horses followed them. Jackson, in a truck, followed slowly behind the two loose horses, two secured horses, and the helper. A car driven by Brantley (plaintiff) came around a curve in the road. Brantley’s car had its headlights on. The headlights apparently startled the horses. The two loose horses bolted. Brantley’s car struck and killed one of the loose horses, and Brantley’s car was damaged. Brantley sued Jackson for the damages to Brantley’s car. Jackson argued that he was not liable, citing Code of Alabama 1975 § 3-5-3, which states that an animal owner is not liable for damages to motor vehicles colliding with the owner’s animals, unless the animals were “knowingly or willfully” placed on the public highway where the damages occurred. Jackson counterclaimed against Brantley. The jury found in favor of Brantley and against Jackson’s counterclaim. Jackson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holmes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.