416 VICIOUS AND FEROCIOUS ANIMALS. 



keeping be alleged/^* nor that it was the duty of the defend- 

 ant to use reasonable care."^ The plea of "not guilty" puts 

 in issue the ferocity of the animal and the scienter of the de- 

 fendant."« 



The amount of damages should include such as naturally 

 arose from the injury sustained, as medical attendance, 

 suffering and inability to attend to business.^®''' Proof of 

 the plaintifif's daily earnings is admissible.^®* In the case 

 of the bite of a dog, especially in a warm climate, it is a very 

 serious matter outside of the actual pain. The dangers of 

 lockjaw, the fear of hydrophobia, and the general shock to the 

 system are all to be taken into consideration.^®* So, evidence 

 was held admissible that a child ever since the bite had shown 

 signs of fright and excitement at the sight of any dog.""* 

 And where the petition alleged that the plaintiff was still suf- 

 fering, it was held that damages should not be limited to the 

 date of bringing the suit.^"^ But damages for future pain and 

 anguish are not allowed unless the petition alleges that the 

 plaintiff has not recovered.^"^ The action may be brought 

 without regard to the extent of the bite or the size of the 

 dog.^"^ Where a dog that had previously bitten the plaint- 

 iff's wife flew at her when she was enceinte and caused a mis- 

 carriage, the defendant was held liable. "The law is settled 

 that if a breach of duty exposes a person toward whom the 

 duty is contracted to obvious peril, the act of the latter in en- 

 deavoring to escape from the peril, although it may be the 



"* Brooks V. Taylor, 65 Mich. 208. 



"" Card V. Case, s C. B. 622. '" Ibid. 



^"Warner v. Chamberlain, 7 Houst. (Del.) 18; Gries v. Zeck, 24 O. 

 St 329. 



'" Hubert V. Bedell, 50 N. Y. St. Repr. 251. 



'"■ The Lord Derby, 17 Fed. Rep. 265. 



™° Roswell V. Leslie, 133 Mass. 589. 



So, injuries to a flock of sheep by fright may be shown: Campbell 

 V. Brown, 19 Pa. St. 359. 



"" Lemoine v. Cook, 36 Mo. App. 193. 



"" Shultz V. Griffith, 103 la. 150. «» Ritter v. Ewing, 4 Pa. Dist. 203. 



