OWNERSHIP OF ANIMALS 261 
edge of the teamster and barnman 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 protection of in- 
dividuals is liable for any injury resulting proxi- 
mately therefrom.‘t 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.4? An owner is liable for the damage 
done by his animals when he drives them upon the 
land of another.4? 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.*4 
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 Robbins v. Magoon & Kim- 43 Angus Cattle Co. v. Me- 
ball Co., 153 N. W. 13. Leod, 152 N. W. 322. 
41Schaar v. Comforth 44 Milligan v. Wehinger, 68 
(Minn.), 151 N. W. 275. Pa. St. 235. 
42 Houska v. Hrabe (8. 
Dak.), 151 N. W. 1021. 
