LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 583 



dog was loose, for the servant assumes, on entering such employment, 

 only the risk consequent upon keeping such a dog which is fastened, 

 except when the servant is otherwise notified. He does not take the 

 risk of being bitten when the dog is negligently left unfastened. 

 (MuUer v. McKesson, 73 N. Y. 195.) 



The doctrine of the non-liability of the master to the servant for 

 injuries of a co-servant, cannot be invoked to shield the owner of a 

 ferocious animal for liabilities for injuries to the servant occasioned by 

 negligence of a fellow-servant in not properly fastening the animal, or 

 of not giving notice of the animal being loose. (Id.) 



The owner of a ferocious animal is not relieved from liability for 

 injuries inflicted by it through slight negligence or want of ordinary 

 care on the part of the person injured. To constitute such a defense 

 acts must be proved, with notice of the character of the animal, estab- 

 lishing that the person injured voluntarily brought the injury on him- 

 self. (Id.) 



Ordinary familiarities with a dog running alone by one without 

 knowledge of its disposition is not negligence which will relieve the 

 owner from responsibility. (Lynch v. McNally, 73 N. Y. 347.) 



The owner of a dog known by him to be ferocious is liable, unless 

 the person injured voluntarily incurred the danger with a full knowl- 

 edge of its probable consequences. (Fanning v. Hagadorn, 9 Weekly 

 Digest, 36.) 



The owner of a vicious dog which is kept properly chained and under 

 restraint is not liable for injuries sustained by a person voluntarily 

 coming within its reach for the purpose of becoming familiar with it by 

 feeding. (Werner v. Winterbottam, 17 St. Reporter, 751.) 



The fact that a dog was kept chained upon defendants' premises for 

 their protection, charges the owner with knowledge of its character, 

 so that he is liable without proof that the animal had actually bitten 

 any person, before it committed the injury complained of. (Brice v. 

 Bauer, 108 N. Y. 428.) 



The risk of harboring a dog which has habits calculated to frighten 

 horses lies upon the person who controls him, and and he is liable for 

 mischief caused thereby. (Putnam v. Wigg, 37 St. Reporter, 304.) 



Where plaintiff went upon defendant's premises to cut grass, given 

 to him by defendant's manager for the cutting, and was bitten by 

 defendant's dog, held that he was entitled to recover for the injury. 

 (Hubert V. Bedell, 50 St. Reporter, 251.) 



