380 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



mal and a servant is negligent in view of such propensity, the 

 owner is hable, though no specific exhibition of viciousness 

 has been brought to his knowledge.^" Thus, where a game- 

 keeper sent his dog after some boys who had trespassed on 

 the ground which he was appointed to watch and the dog 

 bit one of the boys, it was held that the keeper's employer was 

 liable in damages.^^ But where a watchman in the defend- 

 ants' employment set their dogs on the plaintiff, the defend- 

 ants were held not liable for the injuries as they had no knowl- 

 edge of the dog's viciousness and, if they had, the watchman 

 was acting out of the sphere of his employment.^^ Where a 

 passenger in an omnibus was injured by a blow from the hoof 

 of one of the horses which had kicked through the front panel, 

 and there was no evidence that the horse was a kicker but it 

 was shown that the panel bore the marks of other kicks and 

 that no precaution had been taken by the use of a kicking- 

 strap, etc., and no explanation was offered on the part of the 

 defendants, it was held that there was evidence of negligence 

 proper to be submitted to a jury.^* 



The owner is bound to guard against the general propensi- 

 ties of the class to which the animal belongs as well as against 

 the special tendencies of the specific animal known to him.^* 

 But in an action in Scotland by a dairymaid against her mas- 

 ter for injuries received while removing cows from a field 

 where there was also a bull belonging to the defendant, which 

 attacked and trampled upon her, it was held that, as it was not 

 proved that the animal was vicious, the master was not liable. 

 The court said : "It is no doubt true that all bulls are of a 



'' Linnehan v. Sampson, 126 Mass. 506. See, also, with regard to lia- 

 bility for the acts of a servant, the cases cited in § 96, infra. 



" Macdonald v. Lye, 4 Sc. L. Rev. (Sher. Ct. Rep.) 376. 



" Gracie v. Hedderwick, 5 Sc. L. Mag. 75. 



"■ Siinson v. London Gen. Omnib. Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 390. And as to 

 liability resulting from kicking, see Gilbertson v. Richardson, 5 C. B. 502; 

 and Hardiman v. Wholley (Mass.), 52 N. E. Rep. 518, cited in § 76, supra! 



" Hammond v. Melton, 42 111. App. 186, where the animal was a stallion. 

 And see Meredith v. Reed, 26 Ind. 334. 



