LIABILITIES 85 



shown that through his negligence an infectious 

 disease was conveyed to another patient.^" 



56. Special Liability. It sometimes happens in 

 accident cases that an animal is so seriously in- 

 jured as to be worthless. Bystanders urge that it 

 be put out of its misery, and the veterinarian is 

 called upon to render this service. In case the 

 owner is present and gives his consent there is 

 no question of the legal right ; but where the owner 

 is absent a veterinarian so acting does it at his 

 own risk. If the street car, for example, which 

 has done the injury represents a liability of the 

 corjjoration for the damage done, a representa- 

 tive of the company may take the responsibility 

 for the destruction of the animal. Where fur- 

 ther investigation shows that the employees of 

 the corporation were not negligent, or that there 

 was contributory negligence on the part of the 

 owner of the animal, such an order of the repre- 

 sentative of the company might be taken as an 

 acknowledgment of liability on the part of the 

 company; or it might be held that he acted with- 

 out authority. In the latter case he counsels a 

 destruction of property not his own, and such 

 illegal act would be no protection for the illegal 

 act of the veterinarian in committing the deed. 



The common law of humanity might justify put- 

 ting the animal out of its misery; but if it be later 

 shown in trial of the case that the killing was un- 

 necessary, the veterinarian might be held for the 

 destruction of the animal.*^ A policeman may, 



40 Piper V, Menifee, 12 B, •»! See Miller v. Horton, 152 



Mon. 465; Helland v. Briden- Mass. 540. 

 stine, 55 Wash. 470, 104 Pac. 

 626. 



