Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/595

 —

.

Part cattle



Liability of

III.

Owners of Animals.

and horses, or attack human bemgs

The law as to proof (q). dogs injuring cattle, sheep, horses, mares {r), has been altered by statute {t).

of scienter in cases of

and pigs

(s)

814. The evidence of the scienter must be directed to the particular mischievous propensity that caused the damage. In order to recover for the bite of a dog on a human being, it is necessary to show that the owner had notice of the disposition of the dog to bite mankind that the dog had previously bitten a goat is not enough (zt), though to prove a general savage or ferocious disposition towards mankind, and that it was in the habit of rushing at people and attempting to bite them, is sufficient without proof of any actual previous

373 Sect.

Injuries

i.

by

Animals, Proof of ^^^^'^^i^^-

bite {x)

A caution not to go near a dog

(y), and a statement that a particular anything red (z), have been held to be evidence of scienter it is doubtful whether an offer of compensation is evidence, and if left to the jury at all, it ought to have little or no weight with them (a).

bull

would run

at



815. Knowledge of the animal's mischievous propensity need not always be the personal knowledge of the owner himself. If he delegates the care of his business or the care and control of his animal to others, notice to them is equivalent to notice to himself upon the ordinary principle of respondeat superior. Therefore the knowledge of a servant, such as a coachman, who ordinarily has control over a dog kept in the stable yard, is the knowledge of his master {h), and a complaint made on the premises to a wife who helped in her husband's business has been held to be evidence of scienter in an action against the husband (c) and so have complaints made to persons serving behind the bar of a public-house in an action against the publican (d), although there was no

Mason v. Keeling (1700), 1 Ld. Eayiii. 606. As to {q) 1 Dyer, 25 b. pi. 162 dogs hunting and killing game, compare Read v. Ediuards, note [l), p. 377, post. Wright V. Pearson (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 582. (?•) (s) Child V. Hearn (1874), L. E. 9 Exch. 176. {t) See p. 397, post. iu) Osborne v. Chocqueel, [1896] 2 Q. B. 109. {x) Worth V. Gill'ing (1866), L. E. 2 0. P. 1, where the dog was chained up in a yard; the mere fact that the dog was a fierce one will not, however, suffice, j^ier Lord Ellenborough in Beck v. Dyson (1815), 4 Camp. 198. In Jones V. Perry (1796), 2 Esp. 482, Lord Kenyon said that precautions used to tie up a dog showed a knowledge that the animal was fierce and not safe to be compare Curtis v. Mills (1833), 5 C. & P. 489; and see permitted to go abroad Barnes v. Lucile, Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. E. 389 (bitch only fierce when with pups). (y) Judge v. Cox (1816), 1 Stark. 285; compare j5er Abbott, J., in Hartley v.



Harriman (1818), 1 B. & Aid. at p. 623. Compare also Phillips v. Paterson (1907), Times, January lo, 1907. (2) Hudson V. Roherts (1851), 6 Exch. 697. (a) Thomas v. Morgan (1835), 2 C. M. & E. 496. In Beck v. Dyson, supra, Lord Ellenborough refused to leave an offer of compensation to the jury as evidence of scienter. (b) Baldtvin y. Casella (1872), L. E. 7 Exch. 325. Compare Miller v. Kimbray (c) Oladman v. Johnson (1867), 36 L. J. (c. P.) 153. (1867), 16 L. T, 360 (where notice to her deceased husband did not render a widow liable) Elliott v. Lotigden (1901), 17 T. L. E. 648 (notice to son aged

eleven). {d)

Applebee v. Percy (1874), L. E. 9 C. P.

0)4,1,

per Coleridge, C.J., and

Scienter of agent,