384 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



The law is otherwise in the United States. One attacked 

 by a ferocious dog in the daytime, though he is technically a 

 trespasser on the premises, may recover in trespass against the 

 dog's owner. "When the owner of such a dog has permitted 

 him to run at large on his own premises and a trespasser has 

 been bitten by him the owner has been holden Hable. ... A 

 man may not in this country use dangerous or unnecessary 

 instruments for the protection of his property against tres- 

 passers. Such instruments may be used in England, but the 

 principles on which their decisions purport to rest are not sus- 

 tainable or applicable here. ... A dog is an instrument 

 for protection. A ferocious dog is a dangerous instrument 

 and the keeping him on the premises to protect them against 

 trespassers is unlawful, upon the same principle that setting 

 spring guns or concealed spears or placing poisonous foods is 

 unlawful." ^^ But the decisions in which dogs have attacked 

 human beings though trespassers are not applicable where 

 one dog attacks another. The plaintiff must show that the 

 defendant's dog was the aggressor or he cannot recover. "It 

 is one thing for a dog to be dangerous to human life and quite 

 another to be unwilling to have strange dogs upon the mas- 

 ter's premises. ... It [i. e., the judgment] can only be sup- 

 ported upon the broad ground that when two dogs fight and 

 one is killed, the owner can have satisfaction for his loss from 

 the owner of the victorious dog; and I know of no such 

 rule." " 



burn, supra; Curtis v. Mills, S C. & P. 489; Charlwood v. Greig, 3 C. 

 & K. 46. 



And see Dandurand v. Pinsonnault, 7 Low. Can. Jur. 131. 



" Woolf V. Chalker, 31 Conn. 121. And see Sherfey v. Hartley, 4 Sneed 

 (Tenn.) 58; Loomis v. Terry, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 496; Pierret v. MoUer, 

 3 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 574; Kelly v. Tilton, 2 Abb. App. Dec. (N. Y.) 49S; 

 Kinmouth v. McDougall, 19 N. Y. Suppt. 771; Marble v. Ross, 124 Mass. 

 44- 



That no notice of the vicious character of the dog need be given as 

 against trespassers, see Woodbridge v. Marks, 17 N. Y. App. Div 139 



" Wiley V. Slater, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 506. 



