A person hired a horse for an afternoon ride. He took it into a field in the course of his ride, and made it gallop round the field. While in the field it suddenly became lame from a fracture, as it afterwards appeared, of a pastern bone. The horse was kept in a stable for six weeks, unable to take exercise from the result of the injury. At the expiry of the six weeks it took inflammation of the bowels and died. It was proved that want of exercise tends to make a horse more liable to such a disease. Held that the use of the horse to gallop in the field was a breach of the contract, and that the hirer was therefore liable for the injury which there happened; that while it was not certain that the supervening inflammation resulted from the injury for which the hirer was responsible, it was at least highly probable that it did so result; and that in the circumstances the hirer was liable for the value of the horse-Lord Gifford dissenting and holding (1) that the hirer was fairly entitled to use the horse as he had done; and (2) that the inflammation not being proved to have been directly connected with the injury, the hirer should not, even assuming him liable for that injury, be found liable for the price of the horse.
Citations:
[1880] SLR 18 – 132 – 2
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Contract
Updated: 20 November 2022; Ref: scu.578890