GENERAL RULES AFFECTING LIABILITY, ETC. 287 



Thus, where a cow breaks down a fence and enters upon the 

 property of another, its owner is liable for personal injuries 

 sustained by one lawfully trying to prevent the trespass, al- 

 though there is no evidence that the cow had ever been 

 known to be vicious.^^*^ And in a Massachusetts case, it was 

 held that the owner of a horse rendered nervous by the 

 driver's treatment, hitched near a sidewalk and standing par- 

 tially on it, was liable for injuries to a passer-by on the side- 

 walk caused by a kick of the horse, without proof that the 

 animal was vicious to the owner's knowledge. The court 

 said : "It used to be said in England, under the rule requiring 

 notice of the habits of an animal, that every dog was entitled 

 to one worry, but it is not universally true that every horse 

 is entitled to one kick. In England, if the horse is a tres- 

 passer and kicks another, the kick will enhance the damages, 

 without proof that the animal was vicious, and that the owner 

 knew it. . . . So in this commonwealth, going further, it 

 would seem, than the English law, a kick by a horse wrong- 

 fully at.large upon the highway, can be recovered for without 

 proof that it was vicious. . . . The same law naturally would 

 be applied to a horse upon a sidewalk where it ought not to 

 be . . . ; and in this case there was evidence of the further 

 fact that the horse was in an exceptionally nervous condition 



Angus V. Radin, S N. J. L. 815; Van Leuven v. Lyke, i Comst. (N. Y.) 

 515; Malone v. Knowlton, 15 N. Y. Suppt. 506; Morgan v. Hudnell, 52 

 O. St. 552; Chunot V. Larson, 43 Wis. 536; Hosier v. Beale, 43 Fed. Rep. 

 358; Lee V. Riley, 18 C. B. N. S. 722. 



See the article in 19 Sol. Jour. 211, quoted in § 92, infra. 



A child bitten in its father's house by the dog of the defendant, who 

 did not know it to be vicious, cannot recover, as it would have to be for 

 trespass, and, not being the owner of the premises, it had no substantial 

 cause of action to which to annex the aggravation of the dog's bite: 

 O'Connell v. Jarvis, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 3. 



'™ Troth V. Wills, 8 Pa. Super Ct. i. Wickham, J., dissented, on the 

 ground that the owner of an animal, not known by him to be vicious or 

 ferocious, was not responsible for injuries which were not the natural 

 consequences of the" well-known disposition and habits of the class to 

 which the animal belonged. 



