NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 389 



night-time f* where the plaintiff voluntarily went into a place 

 where horses were sold, knowing that they were tried without 

 a protecting barrier, and the attendant hit a horse to make 

 him trot and he swerved and kicked the plaintiff.^^ So an 

 employee assumes the risk of injury by elks and deer kept by 

 his employer when he voluntarily engages to work inside of 

 the enclosure in which they are kept.®® 



On the other hand, it has been held to be no defence that 

 the plaintiff was warned the day before not to go near the 

 dog, if the jury think the accident was not due to his negli- 

 gence and want of caution f that the plaintiff knew of a dog's 

 habit of attacking teams and was not cautious in driving by 

 the defendant's house, the latter having let the animal loose f^ 

 that the plaintiff was walking fast and talking loud when at- 

 tacked by a dog;®^ that the plaintiff passed near a horse 

 that he knew to be vicious, not knowing it was temporarily 

 unmuzzled;''" that the plaintiff was unlawfully traveUing on 

 Sunday when bitten by a dog;''^ that a woman thrown off a 

 bridge by a' passing bull had not left the bridge when she first 

 saw the bull f^ that the plaintiff permitted his colt to trespass 



°* Brock V. Copeland, i Esp. 203. 



" Abbott V. Freeman, 35 L. T. N. S. 783, reversing 34 id. 545. So, 

 where a spectator at a fair who had been warned to move back is injured 

 by a horse bolting the track; and neither the owner nor the fair associa- 

 tion is liable, both having been ignorant that the animal was unruly: 

 Hallyburton v. Burke Co. Fair Assn., 119 N. C. 526. 



■^ Bormann v. Milwaukee, 93 Wis. 522. 



" Curtis V. Mills, S C. & P. 489,- — the court saying, "You may be of 

 opinion that, the master of the dog walking just before the plaintiff and, 

 as it were, leading him on, the plaintiff might think he was safe, more es- 

 pecially as no caution was given him at this time by the defendant.'' 



And see Marble v. Ross, 124 Mass. 44. 



" Jones V. Carey, 9 Houst. (Del.) 214. 



" Dockerty v. Hutson, 125 Ind. 102. 



™ Koney v. Ward, 36 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 255. 



" White V. Lang, 128 Mass. 598. "The act of travelling is a condition, 

 not a contributory cause of the injury.'' And see Schmid v. Humphrey, 

 48 la. 652. 



" Barnum v. Terpening, 75 Mich. 557. 



