Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P and D owned neighboring farms. P's principal occupation was raising hogs. A hog had escaped from D's farm and had been seen on P's land during several weeks before the day of the injury. D's boar had charged him ten to twelve times before this occurrence, had held him prisoner in his outhouse several times, and had attacked his wife on four or five occasions. On the day of the injury, P had hauled in several barrels of old bread in his pickup and had put it out for his hogs at the barn. P saw D's boar about a hundred yards behind the barn. On emerging from the house, he looked for the boar and did not see it. He started toward his pickup, and heard a noise behind him, turned around and saw the boar charging toward him. He put out his hand defensively. The boar grabbed it and bit it severely. On prior occasions, P did not shoot the hog because he did not consider that the neighborly thing to do. P did not complain to D until the day of the injury. P sued D seeking damages. P testified about seeing the hog on other occasions without damage being done. The jury found that P was contributorily negligent and also that he voluntarily assumed the risk D got the judgment and P appealed. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co