FAILURE TO TAKE CARE OF A VICIOUS HORSE. 171 



to command a horse, entrusted it to him, and a foot-passenger 

 was injured by the horse when ridden by the boy, an issue 

 was allowed against both father and son. (a) 



137. Failure to take care of a Vicious Horse. — When 

 animals of a -vicious or obstreperous nature are taken along 

 the public thoroughfare, especial care must be taken that 

 they do no injury, and if they are not reasonably kept in 

 subjection their owners are liable for any damage that may 

 thereby ensue ;(6) but merely riding a restive horse which is 

 not known to be so is no ground of action ;(c) and generally 

 with respect to animals either savage by nature or easily 

 infuriated, like a bull or a stallion, the owner takes the risk 

 of their straying in the highway unattended, or getting into 

 a field through which there is a right of way. His blame 

 or fault consists in not securing them adequately against 

 danger to the community, and he is answerable if any harm 

 happen to a member of the public, (c?) If one keeps a horse 

 or any other animal and has no reason to suppose that it is 

 ferocious, the mere fact that it has turned out so would not 

 make him liable for anything that it has done. But if 

 ferocity is estabhshed and known, (e) and especially if notice 

 be given that it is fierce or vicious, one keeps such an animal 

 at his peril, and the keeper of it is not discharged by using 

 diligence which turns out to be ineffectual. (/) Reasonable 

 diligence is no defence to a civil action in such a case,((7) but 

 will be considered where the keeper of such an animal is 



(«) £roini V. Fithon, 1881, 9 R. 36. 



(h) See Harpers v. G. N. Eij. Co., 1886, 13 R. 1139. So are carriers, see § 101, 

 p. 129. 



(c) Bammock v. White, 1862, 11 C.B., N.S. 588. 



{(l) Clark V. Armatronr/, 1862, 24 D. 1315 ; but the duty of the owner of such 

 animal is different in regard to servants about his own place, wliere the animal is 

 kept in an enclosure, Lord Benhobiie in Clark, cit. p. 1320. 



(e) Renwick v. Von RotUry, 1875, 2 R. 855 ; Fra»cr v. Bell, 1887, 14 R. 811. 



(/) Ulackman v. Simmons, 1827, 3 C. and P. 138. 



(<j) Burton v. Moorhcad, 1881, 8 R. 892 (dog); Couan v. DaJzich. 1877, 5 R. 

 241 (dog) ; Jlomirjan v. M'Vei/, 1882, 9 R. 411 (boar) ; see also Phillips v. Nicoll, 

 1884, 11 R. 592, where a butcher was found liable for not using extreme pre- 

 cautions when leading a cow to a slaughter-house ; M'lutijre v. Carmichacl, 1870, 

 8 M. 570 (dog). 



