NEGLIGENCE AND CONTKIBUTOEY NEGLIGENCE. 385 



Damages lie for negligently keeping a savage and danger- 

 ous cock, whereby the plaintiff is pecked and injured.*^ 



The owner of bees is responsible for damage caused by 

 them, as stinging a horse to death, where proper care is not 

 taken to prevent it.*^ 



The owner of an animal is sometimes protected from lia- 

 bility where he has given notice of the character of the animal 

 beforehand to the person injured, as by a printed notice on 

 the outside of the premises.*^ But it is otherwise where the 

 plaintiff is not in fault, as where he cannot read.** Where 

 the vicious habit of the animal is directly dangerous, such 

 as kicking and biting in a horse, hooking in a homed animal 

 or biting in a dog, the owner, if he knows it, is bound to notify 

 those dealing with the animal, but not where the habit is not 

 one that would directly inflict an injury, as pulling. This 

 was held in a case where the plaintiff, while hitching a mare in 

 a stable, put the halter rope through a ring, when the mare 

 pulled back and the plaintiff's finger was caught between the 

 rope and the ring and tom.'*" And one hiring a horse to 

 another is bound to inform the latter of its vicious propensi- 

 ties ; or he will be liable for resulting damages.*® A servant 

 engaged in his master's business and bitten without provoca- 

 tion by a dog allowed to go at large has a right to damages 

 though he had been warned of the character of the dog.*'' 



The question of the plaintiff's negligence is often an im- 

 portant one in these cases. If this contributes materially to 



" Walford v. Mathews, cited in 13 Ir. L. T. 288. 



" Tellier v. Pelland, 5 Rev. Leg. (Can.) 61. 



" See the opinion of Bayley, J., in Ilott v. Wilkes, 3 B. & Aid. 304. 



" Sarch v. Blackburn, 4 C. & P. 297. See, however, Prud'homme v. 

 Vincent, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 11 C. S. 27, where the owner was held not 

 liable, though the plaintiff could not read the notice. 



« Keshan v. Gates, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 288. 



" Campbell v. Page, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 113. So, of permitting a vicious 

 horse to run in a race: Lane v. Minn. State Agric. Soc, 62 Minn. 175, 

 67 id. 65. As to driving a vicious stallion, see Clore v. Mclntire, 120 Ind. 

 262. 



"Auprix V. Lafleur, 25 Low. Can. Jur. 251. 

 25 



