OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 261 



edge of the teamster and bamman that the mule 

 was vicious was sufficient to charge the owner 

 with legally knowing the fact in a case where a 

 servant was killed by the kick of a mule, and the 

 owner was held liable.^^ A person violating the 

 public statutes enacted for the jDrotection of in- 

 dividuals is liable for any injury resulting proxi- 

 mately therefrom.^ ^ So where the defendant 

 allowed his horses to trespass on plaintiff's land, 

 and one of the plaintiff's animals playing with 

 them at a fence was injured, it was held that the 

 defendant's negligence was the proximate cause 

 of the injury.^2 An owner is liable for the damage 

 done by his animals when he drives them upon the 

 land of another.^^ Where one landholder has 

 waived the duty of a neighbor from keeping up 

 a fence he is estopped, in a claim for damages, 

 from denying his own duty to keep up his cattle.'*'* 

 The keeper of domestic animals is only bound 

 to use reasonable care to prevent injury being 

 done by them. If the animal is rightfully in the 

 place where the injury is done, there is no liabil- 

 ity, unless the animal is vicious, and the owner 

 knew it. There could be no recovery for the bite 

 of a dog if the person be bitten as result of his own 

 negligence, or misconduct. Where a horse at- 

 tached to a wagon jumped onto a sidewalk and 

 bit the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not excused from 

 proving viciousness simply because the horse had 



40 Bobbins v. Magoon & Kim- ^3 Angus Cattle Co. v. Mc- 

 baH Co., 153 N. W. 13. Leod, 152 N. W. 322. 



41 Schaar v. Comforth 44 Milligan v. Wehinger, 68 

 (Minn.), 151 N. W. 275. Pa. St. 235. 



42 Houska V. Hrabe (S. 

 Dak.), 151 N. W. 1021. 



