NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 381 



dangerous or at least uncertain temper and liable to be sud- 

 denly and unexpectedly excited ; but is there any rule of law 

 that all bulls must be confined and shut up? Can we affirm in 

 this country, where the breeding of cattle is of so much im- 

 portance, that the owners of bulls are under an obligation to 

 treat them as wild beasts and in such a way as greatly to in- 

 terfere with the breeding of cattle? There is no authority for 

 that. I hold that the owner of a bull is only bound to use a 

 reasonable discretion, and is not bound to confine it unless 

 when it has shown some more than ordinary vicious propen- 

 sity; but there is nothing whatever of that kind in the evi- 

 dence. . . . The law of Scotland will not, any more than that 

 of England, make a master responsible for injury done by a 

 domestic animal unless it be an animal of unusually vicious 

 habits and propensities and known to the owner to be so." ^° 



In another Scotch case, the Lord Chancellor said : "There 

 cannot be blame or negligence in the owner merely from his 

 allowing liberty to an animal which has not by nature the pro- 

 pensity to cause mischief. Blame can only attach to the 

 owner when after having ascertained that the animal has pro- 

 pensities not generally belonging tO' his race, he omits to take 

 proper precautions to protect the public against the ill con- 

 sequences of the anomalous habits." ^® Of which dictum the 

 Journal of Jurisprudence says : "The observation of the Lord 

 Chancellor was all the more remarkable that it was contrary 

 to the law of England, and it was not intended as a statement 

 of the law of Scotland." ^^ 



The place where the animal is kept is often of importance 

 in deciding the question of negligence. Where the owner of 

 an unfenced pasture across which a road ran, not laid out as 

 a highway but used as such, fastened a bull known to be 

 vicious so that it gored a person passing along the road, the 

 owner was held liable though he had warned the person not to 



"" Clark V. Armstrong, 24 D. (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 1315. See Dolph v. Ferris, 

 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 367, cited in § 92, supra. 

 " Fleeming v. Orr, 2 McQu. (Sc.) 14. " 25 Jour. Jurisp. 451. 



