152. ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
which broke through a fence which it was his 
duty to maintain, and infected a neighbor’s sheep, 
was held liable for damages.® In another case 
the owner of the infecting sheep pleaded ‘‘the act 
of God’’ in that his sheep escaped during a severe 
storm, and also that the owners of the other flock 
permitted his sheep to mingle with their own. 
The court nevertheless held the owner of the first 
flock liable because it was not shown that the 
storm was of such an unusual character that he 
could not reasonably have anticipated it, and 
guarded against it; and it further held that the 
owners of the second flock were not guilty of con- 
tributory negligence, because the fact that the 
first flock were infected was not at first apparent.* 
If the circumstances create a suspicion that a dog 
may have hydrophobia, the owner must use spe- 
cial care to prevent his spreading the infection, 
and if injury results through his negligence he 
will be held liable.°? 
The keeping of an animal having an infections 
disease is not per se culpable, and it will not give 
a right of action for damages sustained in conse- 
quence of the disease being communicated to 
other animals unless the owner of the diseased 
animal knew that it was diseased, and was guilty 
of some negligence in the manner of keeping it. 
In an action against a stockyards company for 
death of cattle from Texas cattle fever, alleged to 
have been communicated to them by ticks which 
60 Herrick vy. Gary, 65 Tl. 101. 62 Buck v. Brady, 110 Md. 
61 Mesa De Mayo Land and 568, 73 Atl. 277. 
Live Stock Co. v. Hoyt, 24 Colo. 
App. 279, 133 Pac. 471. 
