Which Came First, the Chicken or the Horse?

The law sides with the injured and against the negligent

There was a time during the 1940s, when a chicken cost Rs. 2 and annas 12. That is Rs. 2.75. So what would you say if someone paid Rs. 100? That too for a dead chicken!

A story went around the school (St. Xavier’s) that a king (of a country called Arabia) was driving down Mohammed Ali Road and accidentally knocked over a chick, the feathered variety. He immediately paid the owner 40 times the worth. The boys were aghast.

Sixty-five years later, an accident involving a chicken fetches $7,500,500. Seven and a half million US dollars! This time no king was involved. And the chicken lived.

There once was a race track. On it practised mounted jockeys. And the horse and jockey were on their routine ride. And it came to pass that a chicken got in their way.  And the horse, Cassidy Blue, was a bit yellow-livered. And, being not too brave, it reared up. And the jockey was thrown from his saddle. And the rider got his foot caught in the stirrup. And the horse kicked and kicked. And the jockey was injured and close to death.

And he died within hours of reaching the hospital.

You be the judge.

Who paid the seven and a half million?

Moneylife readers will remember the story of the horse biting the kid. Duty of care.Negligence.Precautions not taken. The ‘reasonable man’ standard being applied. In this case, the horse was where it was supposed to be. The jockey was doing his job. Thechicken was the trespasser. So who pays?

The track people denied all responsibility. After all, the chicken was not theirs. Unfortunately, when chickens come home to roost, all hell breaks loose.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge, Albert J Snite, recognised that the track-owner’s “… arguments were without merit. There was overwhelming evidence to support the verdict for punitive damages” and that Parx, the track’s management, knew about the chickens on the track, but failed to act. Therein lies the rationale behind the judgement.

Chickens, considered ‘wild birds’, were running onto the track. Another jockey had an accident previously—five months earlier—and had reported the hazard. The management had maintained that they had no control over the intruders.

The instant case relied heavily on the testimony of the other jockey and photographs. The Laws of Evidence came into play, to a great extent. The track management rejected the post-accident video evidence and claimed that such grandstanding prejudiced the minds of the jurymen.

“The videotape recordings and still photographs were relevant to assist the jury in understanding that chickens could make their way to this racetrack surface,” Snite said. “At the same time the court took great care to prevent the jury from improperly using the material by twice instructing them how the material was to be considered.” The judge had second-guessed the defendants. The trial lasted eight days and the jury deemed Parx negligent and found, for the jockey’s widow who was awarded $2.3 million for wrongful death, $500,000 under the Survival Act and $5 million in punitive damages. Another $88,000 in delay damages were added on.

America’s love affair with horses leads to many a story. The law sides with the injured and against the negligent. However, one wonders, if the first incident, the non-lethal one, had not occurred, would the verdict have been different? Was the judgement representing a fact that a warning had gone unheeded? This author thinks so. Of course, the damageswould still have figured in the order, but, maybe, they would have been less. After all, not all hazards are visible, until they happen. 

Courtesy: Moneylife