398 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



would kill a sheep, because the one act proceeds from vora- 

 ciousness, the other from combativeness, and fierce dogs are 

 not so apt to be sheep-killing dogs. If a bull so far loses sight 

 of his submission to the 'dominion of man' as on one occasion 

 to rebel and offer combat, it does not follow as a matter of 

 course that he would be likely to attack a horse, and that fact 

 must be decided by the jury from the nature of the animal, the 

 provocation and other circumstances attending the act." ^"^ 

 So, in an action to recover damages for personal injury from 

 being bitten by a vicious dog, it was held that the owner's 

 knowledge of the dog's propensity to bite men, not merely 

 other animals, must be proved.^"® And the owner of a stallion 

 was held not liable for injuries from its kicking in the absence 

 of proof that it had before kicked a human being.^"* So, the 

 fact that a mare ordinarily gentle is in the habit of kicking 

 horses when in heat does not impose upon the owner any 

 duty to restrain her at other times, and consequently he is not 

 responsible for her kicking another horse when not in 

 heat.^^" And in an action to recover damages for the kick of 

 a horse, mere evidence that for some months prior to the acci- 

 dent it had been seen to snap at persons on different occa- 

 sions and had kicked a stableman, but only when punched 

 with sticks and tickled and teased — was held insufficient to 

 show scienter on the owner's part.^^^ 



And, generally speaking, the act must be such as to furnish 

 a reasonable inference that the animal is likely to commit an 

 act of the kind complained of, and this is a matter to be de- 

 cided by the jury, not by the court.^^^ 



'"Cockerham v. Nixon, ii Ired. L. (N. C) 269. And see Hartley 

 V. Harriman, i B. & Aid. 620. 



"" Keightlinger v. Egan, 65 111. 235. Thus, it is not sufficient that the 

 owner knew that the dog had attacked and bitten a goat: Osborne v. 

 Chocqueel, [1896] 2 Q. B. 109. And see Norris v. Warner, 59 111. 

 App. 300. 



'"• Durrell v. Johnson, 31 Neb. 796. "° Tupper v. Clark, 43 Vt. 200. 



"' McHugh V. Mayor, 31 N. Y. App. Div. 299. 



"' Cockerham v. Nixon, 11 Ired. L. (N. C.) 269, quoted supra. 



