386 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



the injury, he cannot recover.*^ Thus, one who needlessly 

 aggravates a dog cannot recover damages if he is bitten.** 

 But an action may be brought for injuries by a dog to a boy 

 thirteen years old, where the boy struck the dog and incited 

 him to bite and was old enough to know that such would be 

 the probable result of his action, if the boy was exercising 

 such care as could reasonably be expected from one of his 

 age and capacity.^" So, a boy seven years old may recover 

 even if the biting was produced by his kicking the dog, and it 

 is not competent to show that at other times he had teased 

 and worried the animal.^^ 



In an action for an injury by a vicious buU, the plaintifif may 

 recover though he drove the cow that attracted the bull and 

 fii-st struck him on the head to drive him away.^^ And the 

 fact that the plaintifif put his hand on one of two dogs in order 

 to prevent a fight and was bitten, does not necessarily show 

 contributory negligence. "In cases of this kind a great deal 

 depends on the size, the apparent disposition, the conduct 

 and the situation of the two dogs, and upon other circum- 

 stances which are usually proper for the consideration of a 

 jury." ^^ So, where the defendant, while interfering to part 

 two fighting dogs, in raising his stick accidentally struck the 

 plaintiff, it was held that if he used due care he was not liable 

 and that the burden was on the plaintiff to show the want of 

 due care.^* 



Where the plaintiff's horses were attacked by a dog and 



*' Earhart v. Youngblood, 27 Pa. St. 331; Mareau v. Vanatta, 88 111. 132. 



" Quimby v. Woodbury, 63 N. H. 370; Keightlinger v. Egan, 65 111. 

 235; Worthen v. Love, 60 Vt. 285; Bush v. Wathen (Ky.), 47 S. W. Rep. 

 599. 



Otherwise, where the interference is accidental, as by inadvertently 

 stepping on the dog: Fake v. Addicks, 45 Minn. 37. 



" Plumley v. Birge, 124 Mass. 57. And see Munn v. Reed, 4 Allen 

 (Mass.) 431. But see Pilon v. Shedden Co., Rap. Jud. Quebec, 9 C. S. 83. 



°' Linck V Scheffel, 32 111. App. 17. 



°^ Blackman v. Simmons, 3 C. & P. 138. 



"" Matteson v. Strong, 159 Mass. 497. 



" Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 292. 



