ACTION ; PLEADING J DAMAGES. 417 



immediate cause of the injury, is not the less to be regarded as 

 the wrongful act of the wrong-doer." ^"* Where an infant 

 child had been wounded by a vicious animal and thereby been 

 disfigured or deformed, it was held that the father could re- 

 cover only for such expenses as he incurred in healing the 

 original wound, not for those incurred in removing the de- 

 formity or disfiguration.^"^ 



Where a statute gives double damages for injuries from 

 dogs to "any person injured," a parent may bring an action 

 for the loss of services of a minor child and the expenses to 

 which he is put.^"^ But a statute giving double damages to 

 one whose domestic animal is killed by a dog was held penal 

 and not designed for cases where the owner of the dog was 

 in no matter at fault; it did not apply to the case of a mad 

 dog.2" 



Exemplary damages have been granted in the case of the 

 bite of a dog where gross negligence has been proved f^^ and 

 where scienter need not be shovi^n by statute evidence of it is 

 admissible in aggravation of damages.^"* But where one 

 voluntarily assisted in harnessing a vicious horse, it was held 

 that vindictive damages were not recoverable.^^" 



In the absence of proof as to how much damage was done 

 by each of a number of animals, the presumption is that all 

 did equal damage.^^^ But where two dogs of dififerent sizes 

 killed sheep in the dark, the jury were held to have rightly 



'°* Hall V. Atkinson, London Law. Jour., cited in 14 Alb. L. Jour. 104. 



=°' Karr v. Parks, 44 Cal. 46. 



~ McCarthy v. Guild, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 291. 



"" Elliott V. Herz, 29 Mich. 202. And see the dissenting opinion. 



™ Meibus v. Dodge, 38 Wis. 300; Hahn v. Kordula, 5 Kan. App. 142; 

 Falardeu v. Couture, 2 Low. Can. Jur. 96. 



Where the injury occurred through the negligence of the carrier's serv- 

 ant in fastening the dog, punitive damages cannot be recovered from the 

 carrier: Trinity & S. R. Co. v. O'Brien (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. 



Rep. 389. 

 '" Swift V. Applebone, 23 Mich. 252; Koestel v. Cunningham, 97 Ky. 421. 

 '^° Brown v. Green (Del.), 42 Atl. Rep. 991. 

 '" Partenheimer v. Van Order, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 479. 



27 



