332 



FEROCIOUS AND VICIOUS ANIMALS. 



Where a 



dog bites a 

 person. 



Necessity of 

 ownership. 



Eeport that 

 dog had been 

 bitten by a 

 mad dog. 



Where dog 

 had bitten a 

 chM. 



Not necessary 

 to show that 

 dog had bitten 

 another man. 



Evidence of 

 scienter. 



in the case of injuries by animals mansuetce natitrce is an 

 artificial rule which ought not to be extended. 



Thus, where the plaintiff was severely bitten by a fierce 

 mongrel mastiff, which the owner allowed to range the 

 streets of London unmuzzled, it was held that to recover 

 damages the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew 

 the dog to be of a mischievous nature (m). 



In an action to recover damages for injuries caused by a 

 savage dog, it is not necessary that the dog should belong 

 to the defendant ; if he harbours it or allows it to resort 

 to his premises, he sufficiently keeps it to render himself 

 liable (m). But where the defendant has done all that is 

 reasonable to get rid of a stray dog which has come on to 

 his premises, he will not be liable for any injury it may 

 do (o). 



In an action on the case for keeping a mischievous dog, 

 by which the plaintiff's child was bitten, report of the dog 

 having been bitten by a mad dog was held to be evidence 

 to go to the jury, that the plaintiff knew the dog was 

 mischievous and ought to be confined, and particularly as 

 by tying up the dog he had shown some knowledge or 

 suspicion of the fact (p) . 



It was held also in the case of Gethiiig v. Morgan (q), 

 that where a dog had bitten a girl four years before he 

 worried the plaintiff's sheep, an action would lie. 



It is not necessary to show that the dog has bitten 

 another man before it bit the plaintiff ; it is sufficient to 

 show that the defendant knew it had evinced a savage dis- 

 position by attempting to bite (r). But a mere habit of 

 bounding upon and seizing persons, not so as to hurt or 

 injure them, though causing some annoyance and trivial 

 accidental damage to clothes, will not sustain an action (s). 



Where the defendant was a milkman, and his wife occa- 

 sionally attended to his business, carried on in the premises 

 where he kept the dog, it was held that a complaint that 

 the dog had bitten a person, made to the wife on the pre- 



(m) Mason v. Keeling, 12 Mod. 

 332. 



(«) SPKone v. Wood, 5 C. &P. 1. 



(o) Smith V. Great Eastern Rail. 

 Co., L. E., 2 C. P. 4; 36 L. J., 

 C. P. 22; 15 L. T., N. S. 246; 15 

 W. E. 131. 



{p) Jones V. Fernj, 2 Esp. 482. 



(q) Gcthing v. Morgan, Times 

 Newspaper, May 2, 1857, cor. Lord 



Campbell, C.J., and Wightman, 

 Erie and Compton, JJ. See Hartley 

 V. Herriman, 1 B. & A. 620. 



()■) Worth V. Giaing,Jj. R., 2 C. P. 

 1. See also Judge v. Cox, 1 Stark. 

 285 ; 18 R. R. 769 ; Beck v. J)ysoH, 

 4 Camp. 198 ; 16 R. R. 774 ; and 

 Thomas v. Morgan, 4 D. P. C. 223, 

 appear to be to the contrary effect. 



(s) Liney. Taylor, 3 F. & F. 731. 



