Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/597

 — Part

III.

—— —



Liability of

Owners of Animals.

rights of property are concerned is not the question (7?^). Some are certainly included, in that they are of a dangerous nature, and and to this class belong monkeys, lions, tigers, bears, wolves elephants (0), which still remain wild and untamed, though individuals are brought to a degree of tameness which amounts to domestication (0). It would seem that bees do not fall into this

category

375 ^^ct.

Injuries

l.

by

Animals,

(p),

Sub-Sect.

Ljjm-ies to a Trespasser.

3.

818. There being nothing unlawful in keeping a dangerous No liability animal, unless it escapes, the owner is not liable for any injury done to a person who is himself a trespasser, or who brings the bringing^ injury upon himself (g). If a savage bull is kept in a properly injury upon fenced field, and a trespasser enters and is gored, he has no remedy; i^™^^^^' though if he is there under a claim of right, such as a right of way, or even a contested right of way, he can maintain his action (?•). Where a dog was tied up in a yard in the day-time and let loose at night to protect the yard, a foreman who came into the yard after it had been shut for the night, and was bitten, was nonsuited (?•). Undoubtedly a man may keep a fierce dog to protect his property. Liability to but he must not put it in the way of access to his house, so that persons persons innocently coming to the house on lawful business may be ^^gi^^^^^ injured (s). If he does so, the fact that he puts up a notice, "Beware of the dog," will not avail him if the person injured cannot read, nor will the fact that the dog is chained up, if the chain is so long that it can reach those who are passing it). Sect.
 * J *e?son^^^^

2.

Sub-Sect.

Trespass by Animals. Domestic Animals.

1.

819. The owner of animals under control, and is liable,

bound to keep them they escape, for such damage as

clomitce natures is

Liability of

if

owner.

(m) Per EsHER, M.E., in Filhurn v. People's Palace and Aquarium Co. (1890), 25 Q. B. D., at p. 259. (n) BesozziY. Harris (1858), 1 E. & F. 92; Maij v. Burdett (1846), 9 Q. B. 101 1 Hale, P. 0. 430. (0) Filhurn v. People's Palace and Aquarium Co., supra, per BowEJf, L.J., at p. 261. (p) O'Oorman v. C Gorman, [1903] 2 Ir. E. 573, a case of injuries and subsequent death of a man through bees stinging his horse. The jury expressly found negligence in that the bees were kept in unreasonable numbers and in an unreasonable place, and were smoked out at an unreasonable time. Bees, unless disturbed, do not generally sting, and probably the keeping of a few ordinary hives in an ordinary place would not render the owner liable for damage caused by their stings, in the absence of negligence. If kept in unreasonable numbers, however, they may amount to a nuisance. See Parker v. Reynolds, Birmingham Assizes, Times, December 17, 1906; and compare Lucas v. Pettit (1907), 12 Ont. L. Eep. 448, a Canadian case noted in L. T. Journ., Vol. 123, p.

33.

Marlor v. Ball (1900), 16 T. L. E. 239, see note (?:), p. 374, ante. BrocM v. Copeland (1794), 1 Esp. 203. (s) Per TiNDAL, C.J., in Barch v. Blackburn (1830), 4 C. «& P. 297, at p. 300. Compare Worth v. Gilling and Jones y. Perry, note (x), p. 373, ante, [{) Ih'd, and Stilts v. Cardiff Steam Navigation Co., note (e), p. 374, ante. {q) (r)