392 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



would have obtained by inquiry.*® If the animal is ferce nat- 

 iirce, that fact is in itself sufficient notice. In a case in the 

 Supreme Court of the United States it is said : "Certain ani- 

 mals fercB natiirce may doubtless be domesticated to such an 

 extent as to be classed, in respect to the liability of the owner 

 for injuries they commit, with the class known as tame or 

 domestic animals; but, inasmuch as they are liable to relapse 

 into their wild habits and to become mischievous, the rule is 

 that, if they do so and the owner becomes notified of their 

 vicious habit, they are included in the same rule as if they had 

 never been domesticated, the gist of the action in such a case, 

 as in the case of untamed wild animals, being not merely the 

 negligent keeping of the animal, but the keeping of the same 

 with knowledge of the vicious and mischievous propensity of 

 the animal." *^ 



Some of the cases go still further than the principle stated 

 above and hold that, even in the case of a domestic animal 

 like the dog, such knowledge is the sole ground of action and 

 that negligence in the keeping need not be shown. Thus in 

 a New York case it is said : "In some of the cases it is said 

 that from the vicious propensity and knowledge of the owner 

 negligence zvill be presumed, and in others that the owner is 

 prima facie liable. This language does not mean that the 

 presumption or prima facie case may be rebutted by proof of 

 any amount of care on the part of the owner in keeping or re- 

 straining the animal and, unless he can be relieved by some 

 act or omission on the part of the person injured, his liability 

 is absolute. ... It may be that, in a certain sense, an ac- 

 tion against the owner for an injury by a vicious dog is based 

 upon negligence; but such negligence consists not in the 

 manner of keeping or confining the animal or the care exer- 



"^ Turner v. Craighead, 83 Hun (N. Y.) 112; Lawlor v. French, 14 Misc. 

 (N. Y.) 497, 2 N. Y. App. Div. 140; Lynch v. Richardson, 163 Mass. 160; 

 Hayes v. Smith, 8 O. C. D. 92. But see Laherty v. Hogan, 13 Daly (N, 

 Y.) S33- 



" Spring Co. V. Edgar, 99 U. S. 645. 



