183 So. 2d 175 | Miss. | 1966
This suit was filed by Fred Hagger, plaintiff below and appellant here, against J. W. Self and others for the recovery of damages done plaintiff’s truck in a collision between said truck and a bull owned by defendant, J. W. Self, on a state-designated, paved highway. The jury found for defendants. We affirm.
The principal question in this case is whether defendants met the burden of proving lack of. negligence on their part.
Appellant offered proof that his truck was damaged as a result of a collision between the truck and a bull belonging to defendants, and that the collision took place on a state-designated, paved highway.
The proof established a prima facie case of liability under, the provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated section 4876-05 (1957), which provides that:
The owners of livestock which through their owner’s negligence are found on federal or state designated paved highways or highway right-of-ways shall be subject to any damages as a result of wrecks, loss of life or bodily injury as a result of said livestock being on the above designated highways. The burden shall be on the owner of any such livestock to prove lack of negligence.
To meet the burden placed upon them by the foregoing statute, defendants offered testimony that the land immediately adjacent to the highway where the accident took place was leased by one of the defendants, and was planted in corn. There was no fence between the corn field and the
The case went to the jury on proper instructions, and we are of the opinion that the jury was justified in finding that the defendants met the burden of proving lack of negligence on their part. It is argued that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, but with this, we cannot agree.
It is also contended that the court erred in granting a peremptory instruction for one of the defendants, Mrs. R. H. Self.
We are of the opinion that there is no merit to the contention, for there is no proof whatever that Mrs. Self had any interest in the bull, and the proof was positive that she did not have any such interest.
There was no reversible error, and the case is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.