Chapter XXXI: Section II: Injuries by Animals (2)

I am of opinion that this rule must be made absolute, on the ground that there was a total absence of evidence to support the cause of action alleged. The facts I take to be these: The plaintiff, a child of tender age, was lawfully upon the highway, and a horse, the property of the defendant, was straying on the highway. As between the owner of the horse and the owner of the soil of the highway or of the herbage growing thereon, we may assume that the horse was trespassing; and, if the horse had done any damage to the soil, the owner of the soil might have had a right of action against his owner. So, it may be assumed, that if the place in question were a public highway, the owner of the horse might have been liable to be proceeded against under the Highway Act. But, in considering the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant for the injury sustained from the kick, the question whether the horse was a trespasser as against the owner of the soil, or whether his owner was amenable under the Highway Act, has nothing to do with the case of the plaintiff. I am also of opinion that so much of the argument which has been addressed to us on the part of the plaintiff as assumes the action to be founded upon the negligence of the owner of the horse in allowing it to be upon the road unattended, is not tenable. To entitle the plaintiff to maintain the action, it is necessary to show a breach of some legal duty due from the defendant to the plaintiff; and it is enough to say that there is no evidence to support the affirmative of the issue that there was negligence on the part of the defendant for which an action would lie by the plaintiff. The simple fact found is, that the horse was on the highway. He may have been there without any negligence of the owner: he might have been put there by a stranger, or might have escaped from some enclosed place without the owner’s knowledge. To entitle the plaintiff to recover, there must be some affirmative proof of negligence in the defendant in respect of a duty owing to the plaintiff. But, even if there was any negligence on the part of the owner of the horse, I do not see how that is at all connected with the damage of which the plaintiff complains. It appears that the horse was on the highway, and that, without anything to account for it, he struck out and injured the plaintiff. I take the well-known distinction to apply here, that the owner of an animal is answerable for any damage done by it, provided it be of such a nature as is likely to arise from such an animal, and the owner knows it. Thus, in the case of a dog, if he bites a man or worries sheep, and his owner knows that he is accustomed to bite men or to worry sheep, the owner is responsible; but the party injured has no remedy unless the _scienter_ can be proved. This is very familiar doctrine; and it seems to me that there is much stronger reason for applying that rule in respect of the damage done here. The owner of a horse must be taken to know that the animal will stray if not properly secured, and may find its way into his neighbor’s corn or pasture. For a trespass of that kind, the owner is of course responsible. But if the horse does something which is quite contrary to his ordinary nature,—something which his owner has no reason to expect he will do, he has the same sort of protection that the owner of a dog has; and everybody knows that it is not at all the ordinary habit of a horse to kick a child on a highway. I think the ground upon which the plaintiff’s counsel rests his case fails. It reduces itself to the question whether the owner of a horse is liable for a sudden act of a fierce and violent nature which is altogether contrary to the usual habits of the horse, without more.[273]

DICKSON _v._ MCCOY
COURT OF APPEALS, NEW YORK, JUNE TERM, 1868.
_Reported in 39 New York Reports, 400._

This was an action for injury to the plaintiff by the horse of the defendant. The plaintiff, a child of ten years, was passing the stable of the defendant, upon the sidewalk of a populous street in the city of Troy, when the defendant’s horse came out of the stable, going loose and unattended, and, in passing, kicked the plaintiff in the face. The complaint alleged that the horse was “of a malicious and mischievous disposition, and accustomed to attack and injure mankind;” also, that the defendant “wrongfully and negligently suffered the said horse to go at large in and upon the public streets,” etc. The proof as to the disposition of the horse was only to the effect that he was young and playful, and, when loose in the street, was accustomed to run and kick in the air, but had never been seen to kick at any person. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no proof that the horse was vicious, which was refused. The defendant also requested the court to charge that there was no proof that the horse was possessed of any vicious propensity, or mischievous habit, which required the defendant to exercise special care over him; which the court declined to charge. The court did charge, that “it was for the jury to find, under the evidence, whether the defendant was or was not guilty of negligence in permitting the animal, which did the injury complained of, to run at large, as detailed by the witnesses on the part of the plaintiff,” etc.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for $500, which was affirmed, on appeal, at the General Term, and the defendant appeals to this court.

DWIGHT, J. I agree with the counsel for the defendant that there is no proof in the case to sustain the allegation in the complaint, that this horse was vicious and accustomed to attack and injure mankind. The fact that a horse is young and playful, that he kicks in the air, and runs and gambols when loose in the street, is no proof of a malicious or vicious disposition. But I regard the allegation as unnecessary, and the absence of proof on the point as not affecting the right to recover. The finding of the jury, under the charge of the court, was clearly to the effect that the defendant was guilty of negligence in suffering his horse to go at large upon the sidewalk, as shown in the case. And there was a sufficient allegation to that effect in the complaint. It is not necessary that a horse should be vicious to make the owner responsible for injury done by him through the owner’s negligence. The vice of the animal is an essential fact only when, but for it, the conduct of the owner would be free from fault. If the most gentle horse be driven so negligently as to do injury to persons or property, the owner or driver will be responsible. Certainly, not less so if the horse be negligently turned loose in the street without restraint or control. The motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The only question in the case was that propounded by the court to the jury, “was the defendant guilty of negligence in permitting the horse to go at large in the street?” The court, I think, might very properly have charged as requested by the defendant, that there was no proof to justify the jury in finding that the horse was possessed of any vicious propensity or mischievous habit. And, yet, it is, in one sense, a mischievous habit for a horse to run and play in the public streets. Though it is no proof of a mischievous disposition, it is liable to produce mischievous results. There was, therefore, no error in the refusal to charge as requested. The instructions of the court to the jury were correct, and the verdict is conclusive upon all the questions in the case.

_The judgment must be affirmed._

[The opinion of GROVER, J., is omitted.][274]

DECKER _v._ GAMMON
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, MAINE, 1857.
_Reported in 44 Maine Reports, 322._

This is an action on the case[275] to recover the value of a horse alleged to have been injured by the defendant’s horse, and comes forward on exceptions to the rulings of Goodenow, J.

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that at night, on the 13th of September, 1855, he put his horse into his field well and uninjured. The next morning, September 14, his horse and the defendant’s were together in his, the plaintiff’s close, the defendant’s horse, having, during the night, escaped from the defendant’s enclosure, or from the highway, into the close of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff’s horse was severely injured by the defendant’s horse, by kicking, biting, or striking with his fore feet, or in some other way, so that he died in a few days after.

The defendant requested the presiding judge to instruct the jury that to entitle the plaintiff to recover against the defendant he must prove, in addition to other necessary facts, that the defendant’s horse was vicious, and that the defendant had knowledge of such viciousness prior to the time of the alleged injury. The presiding judge declined giving these instructions, and directed the jury that if they should find that the defendant owned the horse alleged to have done the injury to the plaintiff’s horse, and if, at the time of the injury, he had escaped into the plaintiff’s close, and was wrongfully there, and while there occasioned the injury, and that the horse died in consequence, that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the value of the horse so injured. That it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the horse was vicious, or accustomed to acts of violence towards other animals or horses, or that the owner had notice of such viciousness or habits.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.[276]

DAVIS, J. There are three classes of cases in which the owners of animals are liable for injuries done by them to the persons or the property of others. And in suits of such injuries the allegations and proofs must be varied in each case, as the facts bring it within one or another of these classes.

1. The owner of wild beasts, or beasts that are in their nature vicious, is, under all circumstances, liable for injuries done by them. It is not necessary, in actions for injuries by such beasts, to allege or prove that the owner knew them to be mischievous, for he is conclusively presumed to have such knowledge; or that he was guilty of negligence in permitting them to be at large, for he is bound to keep them in at his peril.

“Though the owner have no particular notice that he did any such thing before, yet if he be a beast that is _ferae naturae_ if he get loose and do harm to any person, the owner is liable to an action for the damage.” 1 Hale, P. C. 430.

“If they are such as are naturally mischievous in their kind, in which the owner has no valuable property, he shall answer for hurt done by them, without any notice; but if they are of a tame nature, there must be notice of the ill quality.” Holt, C. J. Mason _v._ Keeling, 12 Mod. R. 332.

“The owner of beasts that are _ferae naturae_ must always keep them up, at his peril; and an action lies without notice of the quality of the beasts.” Rex _v._ Huggins, 2 Lord Raym. 1583.

2. If domestic animals, such as oxen and horses, injure any one, in person or property, if they are rightfully in the place where they do the mischief, the owner of such animals is not liable for such injury unless he knew that they were accustomed to do mischief. And in suits for such injuries, such knowledge must be alleged, and proved. For unless the owner knew that the beast was vicious he is not liable. If the owner had such knowledge he is liable.

“The gist of the action is the keeping of the animal after knowledge of its vicious propensities.” May _v._ Burdett, 58 Eng. C. L. 101.

“If the owner have knowledge of the quality of his beast, and it doth anybody hurt, he is chargeable in an action for it.” 1 Hale P. C. 430.

“An action lies not unless the owner knows of this quality.” Buxendin _v._ Sharp, 2 Salk. 662.

“If the owner puts a horse or an ox to grass in his field, and the horse or ox breaks the hedge and runs into the highway, and gores or kicks some passenger, an action will not lie against the owner unless he had notice that they had done such a thing before.” Mason _v._ Keeling, 12 Modern R. 332.

“If damage be done by any domestic animal, kept for use or convenience, the owner is not liable to an action on the ground of negligence, without proof that he knew that the animal was accustomed to do mischief.” Vrooman _v._ Sawyer, 13 Johns. R. 339.

3. The owner of domestic animals, if they are wrongfully in the place where they do any mischief, is liable for it, though he had no notice that they had been accustomed to do so before. In cases of this kind the ground of the action is that the animals were wrongfully in the place where the injury was done. And it is not necessary to allege or prove any knowledge on the part of the owner that they had previously been vicious.

“If a bull break into an enclosure of a neighbor, and there gore a horse so that he die, his owner is liable in an action of trespass _quare clausum fregit_, in which the value of the horse would be the just measure of damages.” Dolph _v._ Ferris, 7 Watts & Serg. R. 367.

“If the owner of a horse suffers it to go at large in the streets of a populous city he is answerable in an action on the case for a personal injury done by it to an individual without proof that he knew that the horse was vicious. The owner had no right to turn the horse loose in the streets.” Goodman _v._ Gay, 3 Harris R. 188. In this case the writ contained the allegation of knowledge on the part of the defendant; but the court held that it was not material and need not be proved.

The case before us is clearly within this class of cases last described. It is alleged in the writ that “the plaintiff had a valuable horse which was peaceably and of right depasturing in his own close, and the defendant was possessed of another horse, vicious and unruly, which was running at large where of right he ought not to be; and being so unlawfully at large, broke into the plaintiff’s close, and injured the plaintiff’s horse, &c.” It is also alleged that “the vicious habits of the horse were well known to the defendant;” but this allegation was not necessary, and may well be treated as surplusage. If the defendant had had a right to turn his horse upon the plaintiff’s close it would have been otherwise. But if the horse was wrongfully there the defendant was liable for any injury done by him, though he had no knowledge that the horse was vicious. The gravamen of the charge was that the horse was wrongfully upon the plaintiff’s close; and this was what was put in issue by the plea of not guilty.

Nor are these principles in conflict with the decision in the case of Van Leuven _v._ Lyke, 1 Comstock, 515. In that case the action was not sustained because the declaration was not for trespass _quare clausum_ with the other injuries alleged by way of aggravation. But in that case there was no allegation that the animal was wrongfully upon the plaintiff’s close; or that the injury was committed upon the plaintiff’s close. 4 Denio R. 127. And in the Court of Appeals it was expressly held that “if the plaintiff had stated in his declaration that the swine broke and entered his close, and there committed the injury complained of, and sustained his declaration by evidence, he would been entitled to recover all the damages thus sustained.” 1 Coms. 515, 518.

In the case before us, though the declaration is not technically for trespass _quare clausum_, it is distinctly alleged that the defendant’s horse, “being so unlawfully at large, broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, and injured the plaintiff’s horse,” which was there peaceably and of right depasturing. This was sufficient; and the instruction given to the jury, “that if the defendant’s horse, at the time of the injury, had escaped into the close, and was wrongfully there, and while there occasioned the injury, then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover,” was correct. And this being so, the instruction requested “that the plaintiff must prove, in addition to other necessary facts, that the defendant’s horse was vicious, and that the defendant had knowledge of such viciousness prior to the time of the injury,” was properly refused.

CUTTING, J., did not concur.

_Exceptions overruled._[277]

DOYLE _v._ VANCE
SUPREME COURT, VICTORIA, APRIL 16, 1880.
_Reported in 6 Victorian Law Reports, Cases at Law, 87._

STAWELL, C. J.[278] A dog belonging to the defendant got on land belonging to the plaintiff, how, does not appear, and barked at a horse of the plaintiff which was then grazing quietly in an inclosed field; the horse ran away, tried to leap over the fence, fell and broke its neck. The plaint was in the ordinary form, alleging a _scienter_ in the defendant. At the trial, an application was made to add a count for trespass by the dog on the plaintiff’s land. The application was granted, and though the amendment was not formally written on the plaint, it may now be considered as having been made. A verdict was given for the plaintiff, with £10 damages.

The defendant has appealed, and the question we have to consider is whether, as a matter of law, he is liable for the trespass committed by his dog. It would have been competent for the judge at the trial to have found that the dog was on the land, by the leave and license of the plaintiff; all the circumstances point to the probability of that being the case. But he has found that the dog was there as a trespasser. There are a number of cases in which judges have expressed _obiter dicta_, as to the non-liability of an owner for injuries done by his dog, and curious and singular reasons—that a dog was the companion of man (and the like)—have been assigned for those _dicta_; reasons which courts have treated as entitled to high respect, and which have not been dissented from. There is, however, a comparatively recent case, Read _v._ Edwards, _supra_,[279] in which an action was brought against the owner of a dog for having chased and destroyed game, the declaration alleging _scienter_ by the defendant. All the _dicta_ of the learned judges to which I have referred were cited in the argument, were commented on and received attention. The case was decided on another point, but Mr. Justice Willes, who delivered the judgment of the Court, said:—

“The question was much argued whether the owner of the dog is answerable in trespass for every unauthorized entry of the animal into the land of another, as in the case of an ox, and reasons were offered, which we need not now estimate, for a distinction in this respect between oxen, and dogs or cats, on account, first, of the difficulty or impossibility of keeping the latter under restraint; secondly, the slightness of the damage which their wandering ordinarily causes; thirdly, the common usage of mankind to allow them a wider liberty; and lastly, their not being considered in law so absolutely the chattels of the owner as to be the subject of larceny. It is not, however, necessary in the principal case to answer that question.”

The legitimate inference from these observations is that the question, whether the _dicta_ I have referred to are law, has not yet been decided, and that the subject is open for consideration. There may be very cogent reasons, socially, for exempting the owner from liability. But there is no reason which a court of law can recognize. Serious injury might be inflicted by a dog revelling in a highly-cultivated _parterre_, and can it with propriety be said that the owner of the garden can obtain no compensation? It has been decided that a dog can be distrained for _damage feasant_: Bunch _v._ Kennington, 1 Q. B. 679. There can be no question, if an ox were substituted for a dog, as having done the mischief complained of in the present case, the owner would be liable. Cox _v._ Burbidge, _supra_,[280] which was cited, does not apply. There, the defendant’s horse, being on the highway, kicked the plaintiff, a child who was playing there. The defendant was held not guilty of actionable negligence; but that was on the ground that the horse had a right to be on the highway, as well as the child, and was therefore not a trespasser.

In Lee _v._ Riley, _supra_,[281] through defect of fences which it was the defendant’s duty to repair, the defendant’s mare strayed in the night time from his close into an adjoining field, and so into a field of the plaintiff’s, in which was a horse. From some unexplained cause the animals quarrelled, and the result was that the plaintiff’s horse received a kick from the defendant’s mare, which broke its leg, and it was necessarily killed. It was held that the defendant was answerable for the mare’s trespass, and the damage was not too remote. The decision was based on the fact that the defendant’s mare trespassed on the plaintiff’s land, and that it was the duty of the owner of an animal to keep it from trespassing. In Ellis _v._ The Loftus Iron Co., _supra_,[282] the defendant’s horse having injured the plaintiff’s mare by biting and kicking her through the fence separating the plaintiff’s land from the defendants’, it was held that there was a trespass by the act of the defendants’ horse, for which the defendants were liable, apart from any question of negligence on their part.

The owner of an animal is therefore responsible for any damage fairly resulting from a trespass by that animal. The damage here has resulted from the trespass, and the verdict will therefore stand.

The argument based upon “The Dog Act 1864” (No. 229), sec. 15, enacting that the owner of a dog shall be liable for injury done to sheep, without proof of _scienter_, should be noticed; it was urged that the necessity for passing such an enactment implied that there was previously no liability. But that argument goes too far. One part of the enactment is declaratory, and the other is new.

BARRY, J. I am of the same opinion. It is remarkable that this question should not have been settled until now, and, apparently from a desire to avoid overruling old cases which had been decided on the most subtle reasons, the judges have abstained from considering the question in a broad aspect. The old reports abound with expressions of peculiar regard for dogs and cats; and Lord Tenterden does not think it beneath his dignity to quote, in his book on shipping, “if mice eat the cargo, and thereby occasion no small injury to the merchant, the master must make good the loss, because he is guilty of a fault; yet if he had cats on board his ship, he shall be excused.” One reason given for the exemption of liability, so far as the dog is concerned, is on account of his familiarity with man. But we cannot regard these every day questions in the same subtle way as they were regarded three hundred years ago. The doctrine of trespass is considered on much more reasonable grounds in these days. Where sheep, oxen, or horses, commit a trespass, it has always been held that the owner is liable; and that liability has been extended to poultry, and poultry are as much domesticated as a dog or a cat. In Brown _v._ Giles, 1 C. & P. 118, Mr. Justice Park is reported to have said that he was decidedly of opinion that a dog jumping into a field without the consent of its master, not only was not a trespass, but was no trespass at all on which an action could be maintained. But that remark was merely _obiter_; the case was decided for the plaintiff on another point. The learned judge has found that there was a trespass. The dog was left to roam at its discretion, uncontrolled by its master.

STEPHEN, J. I also concur. It seems to have been considered, in old times, that there was a marked distinction between trespass by a dog, and trespass by an ox. Now, as a general rule, no such distinction is made. I cannot see why there should be any. This case illustrates how far the law ought to be altered, so as to preserve its accordance with change of time and place. Of course, the Court cannot alter the clearly-expressed language of an act of Parliament, though the reason for it may have ceased. And so also as to actual decisions of the Courts. If there is reason to alter the law, the legislature must do it. But on this question, there have been no more than _obiter dicta_ based upon reasons which have no longer any existence. At one time a dog could not be the subject of a theft. The Court is at liberty, within reasonable limits, to meet the changed circumstances of the present day. I can see no sound reason why there should be a difference between the case of trespass by a dog, and one by an ox.

_Appeal dismissed._[283]

TROTH _v._ WILLS
SUPERIOR COURT, PENNSYLVANIA, JULY 29, 1898.
_Reported in 8 Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, 1._

Trespass for personal injuries. Before Brégy, J.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, a lady about fifty-five years of age, was temporarily living with her son, in a small country place, and the cow of the defendant strayed into the garden belonging to the son. The plaintiff, seeing the cow in the garden, came out of her son’s house and attempted to drive the cow out of the garden back into the pasture field, from where she entered into the garden. The plaintiff alleges that while so driving the cow out of the garden back into the field, the cow deliberately went towards the field, and that she followed closely behind the cow, when the cow suddenly turned her head and butted the plaintiff in the abdomen, and hence her injuries.[284]

Defendant requested (Request No. 5) a ruling, that, under all the evidence, the verdict should be for the defendant. The court declined so to rule. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

SMITH, J. It is not necessary, in disposing of this case, to determine the liability of the owner of a domestic animal for all its acts while trespassing upon another’s land. In such cases, the primary trespass is the entry of the animal upon the land; the attendant damage for which the owner may be held liable is matter of aggravation. The minimum liability of the owner is for acts arising from the natural propensities of the species, and from special characteristics and acquired habits of the individual of which the owner has notice. When the primary trespass is the wilful act of the owner, he may be held to a larger measure of responsibility; thus if he take a dog into a field where he is himself a trespasser, and the dog there kills or injures sheep, this, though its first offence, may be laid as an aggravation of the trespass: Beckwith _v._ Shordike, Burr. 2092; Michael _v._ Alestree, 2 Lev. 172, cited in Dolph _v._ Ferris, 7 W. & S. 367. Beyond this, the authorities appear unsettled, and principle and analogy form the only guide. Doubtless there may be mischief so far independent of the primary trespass, and unrelated to the propensity or habit leading to this, that it cannot be deemed matter of aggravation. In my view, however, the mischievous act, when incident to the primary trespass, in any of its aspects, or so closely associated with it as to form a substantive part or an immediate result of it, is a legitimate matter of aggravation, for which the owner should be held liable. In such case, the propensity or habit leading to the primary trespass may be regarded as the proximate cause of the resulting injury. If, for example, trespassing cattle, in order to reach the vegetation in a hotbed, break its glass covering, the owner must be held liable for this injury, though cattle are not by nature prone to break glass. Such breaking is incident to the primary trespass, and grows out of the propensity leading to this. If an animal injure a person lawfully trying to prevent it from trespassing, the owner should be held liable, though the injury be one which the animal is not prone to commit. In such case the mischievous act is closely associated with the primary trespass, and in fact grows directly out of it. The same principle must govern if a person be injured in trying to prevent the continuance of a trespass, or of acts forming an aggravation of it.

* * * * *

In this view of the principles which should govern the determination of this case, the injury to the plaintiff must be deemed an aggravation of the trespass committed by the animal in entering the garden. This injury, indeed, is not such as a cow is ordinarily prone to commit; and there is no evidence that the defendant’s cow had contracted the habit of making such assaults. But the act of the animal was one to which a creature of that kind is naturally disposed on being disturbed while feeding; and it was so directly associated with the primary trespass that, unless the plaintiff’s right to prevent a continuance of this be denied, there can be no ground for questioning the liability of the owner. This right cannot be controverted, for under the circumstances the act of the plaintiff is to be regarded as that of the tenant of the premises. The act of the animal by which the plaintiff was injured, so far from being independent of the primary trespass, or unrelated to it, grew directly out of the propensity in which this originated, coupled with the plaintiff’s attempt to prevent its continuance. The defendant’s fifth point was therefore properly refused. The case was submitted to the jury with suitable instructions, and their finding on the questions involved was concurred in by the trial court.

_The judgment is affirmed._

WICKHAM, J. (dissenting.) ... We are called on to determine whether the rule, so far as our authority goes, shall be established in Pennsylvania, that the owner of a useful, gentle, and domestic animal, belonging to a class recognized from the earliest times as harmless to man, watched, driven to and from the pasture fields, fed and milked by women and children the world over, shall be responsible for the conduct of the animal, foreign to its well-known nature and habits, if it happen that through any negligence of such owner, or his servant, it is permitted to trespass on the land of another, and there injures a third party.

The authorities on this subject are numerous and impossible to reconcile. Some of them rest on statutes or ordinances, not always adverted to in the text-books or digests, in which they are hastily cited. Others are based on the theory, that the right to recover exists because of the trespass to realty, and that any unusual and not to be expected injury caused by the animal to the person of the owner of the land, or his other property, must be alleged and proved by way of aggravation of damages. Another class of cases holds that all injuries committed by an animal, in a place where it has no right to be, must be compensated for by the owner. It is on the latter theory of the law that the plaintiff must recover, if she can sustain her action, as we do not deem it worth while to notice the few erratic and sporadic cases, seemingly decided on no discoverable reason, except an assumed natural equity, that any one injured by anything, animate or inanimate, belonging to another, should be compensated by the owner.

* * * * *

As has already been observed, the plaintiff was not the owner of the land trespassed upon, and it may be remarked that she is aided by no statute.

* * * * *

It is argued that the appellant’s cow was vicious. There is no evidence even suggesting such a tendency, and the learned trial judge so instructed the jury. Conceding that the animal was breachy, as alleged by the plaintiff, this indicated no ferocity or proneness to attack people. Any one, acquainted with the nature and habits of horses and cows, knows that usually the most intelligent and gentle animals of these species are the most cunning and successful in finding their way into forbidden inclosures and the readiest to run away when discovered. As was said in Keshan _v._ Gates, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y. Sup. Ct.) 288: “The vicious habits or propensities which the owner of an animal must, when known to him, guard against, are such as are directly dangerous, such as kicking and biting in horses, and hooking in horned animals, and biting in dogs. These habits or propensities may be indulged in at any moment and are inevitably dangerous.”

The adoption of the rule, sanctioned by the decisions of many respectable tribunals in other states, that the owner of every trespassing domestic animal is liable merely because it is a trespasser for all injuries it may commit, however contrary to its usual nature and disposition, and regardless of his knowledge of its special viciousness, might often lead to strange and unthought-of consequences. For instance, suppose that a pet lamb, always regarded as a harmless playmate of children, is permitted to wander from its owner’s premises into those of a neighbor (this as well as the next illustration is not a supposititious case), and there, in play or anger, butts a child from a high veranda, or a trespassing hatching hen, discovered on its nest by the little son of the owner of the premises, pecks out the eye of the boy as he is lawfully trying to drive it away, the unfortunate owner would be liable in each instance for all the resulting damages. In vain would he urge that the animal causing the injury belonged to a class ordinarily docile in its nature and harmless to man; that he had no reason to anticipate that it would do such unusual mischief; and that he was only responsible for the things hens, lambs, and milch cows usually do and may be expected to do when trespassing, that is, for the natural and probable consequences of their trespasses. The answer, under the rule we are considering, would be: “You were guilty of negligence in permitting your animal to trespass, and therefore you are liable for all its freaks, for the consequences of the wrong, near and remote, probable and improbable, for the things you had reason to anticipate, and those which no one would be likely to think could happen, save as a remote possibility.” The results which might follow the application of such a rule demand its rejection, where it has not already been fully adopted.

The only negligence of the defendant revealed by the evidence was his failure to keep his cow out of the garden of the plaintiff’s son. To the latter, the defendant would certainly be liable for the harm done to the realty, but as he had no notice or knowledge of any vicious or ferocious propensity on the part of the animal, we do not think that he should be mulcted in damages for the unfortunate injury suffered by the plaintiff, nor, for that matter, even to the owner of the land, had such owner been injured in like manner. The appellant’s fifth point, asking the court to direct a verdict in his favor, should have been affirmed.

* * * * *

PORTER, J., concurred in the dissenting opinion of WICKHAM, J.[285]