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 
corporation 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.*t <A policeman may, 
40 Piper v. Menifee, 12 B. 41 See Miller v. Horton, 152 
Mon. 465; Helland v. Briden- Mass. 540. 
stine, 55 Wash. 470, 104 Pace. 
626. 
