This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was traveling on a road in a safe and lawful manner when two horses darted onto the highway in front of him. 'It was dark at the time * * *, and the horses were dark colored.' P did not have time to brake and recalled no details of the accident. He suffered serious injuries. Lake (D) owned the land adjacent to the county road. His brother, Edgar (D), kept several of his horses there, including one of the horses involved in the accident. Roland, an associate and trainer for Edgar (D), owned the other horse and also kept it on Lake's (D) property. There was testimony that the horses could not escape except through the gate. After the accident, the gate was found 'sprung open.' The latch on the gate confining the horses had been left open. Edgar (D) testified that he made sure the gate was latched prior to leaving the premises. After a bench trial, the judge ruled that Lake (D) was not negligent. The court found that Edgar and Hohenberg (Ds) were joint and severally liable to P. This was based on res ipsa loquitur, negligent violation of state laws, and the fact that Ds were joint venturers. Ds appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.