NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. 391 



If the act of a dog is the sole and proximate cause of 

 a horse's shying and such shying is not caused by a vicious 

 habit, the fact that it contributed to the injury will not prevent 

 the plaintiff's recovering against the dog's owner.*^ And if 

 the statute makes the latter liable regardless of the question 

 of care or negligence on his part, the fact that the colt is skit- 

 tish and the carriage unsafe is immaterial.*^ And, although 

 an action will not lie where a horse is frightened simply by 

 seeing a dog lying or running in the street, it is otherwise 

 where a direct attack is made, whether by jumping and bark- 

 ing or by actual assault; nor is the fact that the rein broke 

 from a latent defect material.*^ 



94. Scienter. — Except in the case of animals fera natures, 

 it is essential to show that the owner or keeper of an animal 

 "knew of its vicious or dangerous disposition : otherwise there 

 can be no recovery for an injury committed by it.** He may, 

 however, if he fails to exercise ordinary supervision of an ani- 

 mal under his care, be chargeable with knowledge that he 



" Denison v. Lincoln, 131 Mass. 236. The fact that the owner has seen 

 his dog run out to the fence and bark is not sufficient notice of its vicious 

 habit of jumping against the fence so as to frighten horses: Bradley v. 

 Myers, 10 Lane. L. Rev. (Pa.) 137. , 



'' Chickering v. Lord (N. H.), 32 Atl. Rep. 773- 



"^ Sherman v. Favour, i Allen (Mass.) 191. 



" Buxendin v. Sharp, 2 Salk. 662; Mason v. Keeling, i Ld. Raym. 606; 

 Cox V. Burbridge, 13 C. B. N. S. 430; Chase v. McDonald, 25 U. C. C. 

 P. 129; Spring Co. v. Edgar, gg U. S. 645; Shaw v. Craft, 37 Fed. Rep. 

 317; Pickering v. Orange, 2 111. 492; Wormley v. Gregg, 65 id. 251; 

 Mareau v. Vanatta, 88 id. 132; West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Walsh, 78 111. 

 App. 595; Perkins v. Mossman, 44 N. J. L. 579; State v Donohue, 49 id. 

 548; Staetter v. McArthur, 33 Mo. App. 218; Bell v. Leslie, 24 id. 661; 

 Murphy V. Preston, 5 Mackey (D. C.) 514; Knowles v. Mulder, 74 Mich. 

 202; Murray v. Young, 12 Bush (Ky.) 337; Woolf v. Chalker, 31 Conn. 

 121 ; Finney v. Curtis, 78 Cal. 498; Reed v. South. Expr. Co., 95 Ga. 108; 

 Meegan v. McKay, i Okla. 59; Coggswell v. Baldwin, 15 Vt. 404; Klenberg 

 V. Russell, 125 Ind. 531; Moynahan v. Wheeler, 117 N. Y. 285; Campbell 

 V. Brown, 19 Pa. St. 359; Kitchens v. Elliott, 114 Ala 290. 



