## Facts

- Defendants operated an ice-cutting business on Lake Champlain and left a large opening in the ice near a route commonly used for travel.
- The opening was roughly 20–30 feet by 40–60 feet and was only minimally guarded.
- Plaintiff’s son drove a team and sled onto the lake; while turning, the sled slewed, frightening the horses.
- The horses broke away, ran a substantial distance, and entered the opening, where they drowned.
- A Vermont statute imposed a duty to place suitable guards around openings made in the ice in areas where people were accustomed to travel.
- By special verdict, the jury found (1) the opening was not properly guarded and (2) plaintiff’s servant exercised due care in managing the team.
- The jury also found that suitable guards, if properly placed, would not have prevented the horses from running into the opening.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court correctly instructed that plaintiff had to prove the horses drowned because defendants failed to properly guard the opening, and that plaintiff could not recover if proper guards would not have prevented the accident.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed judgment for defendants.
- The court held the jury was properly instructed that negligence and injury are insufficient without proof that the negligence caused the injury.
- Because the jury found that suitable guards would not have prevented the horses from entering the opening, causation was not established.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence actions, the plaintiff must prove not only negligence and injury, but also that the negligence caused the injury complained of.
- Even where a defendant breaches a duty, the plaintiff cannot recover if the accident would have occurred even had the defendant exercised due care.
- Violation of a safety statute may establish breach of duty, but the plaintiff still bears the burden to prove the statutory violation was a cause-in-fact of the harm.

## Conclusion

The court held that defendants’ failure to properly guard an ice opening, though negligent and contrary to statute, did not create liability absent proof that proper guarding would have prevented the horses’ drowning.


Sowles v. Moore, 65 Vt. 322, 26 A. 629 (Vt. 1893)