388 VICIOUS AND FEKOCIOUS ANIMALS. 



reasonable one, and that the owner cannot be relieved from it 

 by any act of the person injured, unless it be one from which 

 it can be affirmed that he caused the injury himself with full 

 knowledge of its probable consequences." ^^ 



In a later case in the same court where it was held that un- 

 due familiarity with a dog running loose, such as offering it a 

 piece of candy, on the part of one having no knowledge of its 

 viciousness, did not constitute negligence so as to relieve 

 the owner of liability, it was said: "If a person should 

 thrust his arm into a bear's mouth and get bit, it could 

 not be said that the injury was caused by keeping the bear; 

 and so, if a person, knowing the vicious propensities of a dog, 

 should wantonly or wilfully do an act to induce the dog to 

 bite, or should unnecessarily and voluntarily put himself in 

 the way of the dog, knowing the probable consequences, the 

 same principle would apply." °^ 



It has been held to be contributory negligence where the 

 plaintiff, knowing a dog was kept chained in a bed-room, suf- 

 fered his three-year old child to go there unattended;®** 

 where an employee goes voluntarily and unnecessarily near 

 a vicious dog kept chained on the employer's premises,®-^ or 

 within reach of a vicious stallion in a stable;®^ where a servant, 

 knowing a dog's dangerous disposition, tried to feed it, while 

 chained, at the suggestion of a fellow-servant;*^ where one 

 imprudently goes on premises where a dog is kept in the 



" Muller V. McKesson, 73 N. Y. 195. 



" Lynch v. McNally, 73 N. Y. 347. 



The plaintiff may recover, if his position near a chained dog was such 

 as might be assumed by a person of ordinary sense and judgment: Woold- 

 ridge v. White (Ky.), 48 S. W. Rep. 1081. 



" Logue V. Link, 4 E. D. Sm. (N. Y.) 63. 



" Daly V. Arrol Bros., 24 Sc. L. Repr. 150; Farley v. Picard, 78 Hun 

 (N. Y.) 560. And see Badali v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 37 S. W. Rep. 

 642. 



"" Buckley v. Gee, 55 111. App. 388. And see Fraser v. Hood, 15 Rettie 

 (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 178; Noel v. Duchesneau, Rap. Jud. Quebec, 15 C. S. 352. 



" Werner v. Winterbottom, 56 N. Y. Super. Ct. 126. 



