Action on the case, in which the plaintiff declared that on the twentieth of June, in the eleventh of the king, the defendant quendam canem molossum valde ferocem did keep, and let him go loose unmuzzled per publica compita, so that pro defectu curæ of the defendant the plaintiff was bit and worried by the said dog, as he was peaceably going about his business in such a street. There was another count, in which it was laid that the defendant knew the dog ad mordend. assuet. To the first count there was a demurrer, and to the second not guilty.[[269]]
Gould, J. No doubt but in the case of sheep there ought to be a sciens, because that is an accidental quality, and not in the nature of a dog. And as to property of a dog, the Books distinguish; for a man has a property in a dog that is a mastiff or spaniel, for the one is for the guard of his house, the other for his pleasure; but this here is a mongrel, and laid to be valde ferocem, and that must be an innate fierceness, and not accidental; and if a dog be assuet. to bite cows, and the master know it, that will not be sufficient knowledge to make him liable for his biting sheep. Besides, this case is distinguishable in respect of the place, for the law takes notice of highway, and is a security for passengers; and it would be dangerous to keep such dogs near the highway, where all sorts of people pass at all hours; and to maintain this issue, they must give a natural fierceness in evidence.
Holt, C. J. If it had been said that the defendant knew the dog to be ferox, I should think it enough. The difference is between things in which the party has a valuable property, for he shall answer for all damages done by them; but of things in which he has no valuable property, if they are such as are naturally mischievous in their kind, he shall answer for hurt done by them without any notice; but if they are of a tame nature, there must be notice of the ill quality; and the law takes notice that a dog is not of a fierce nature, but rather the contrary; and the presumption is against the plaintiff; for can it be imagined a man would keep a fierce dog in his family wittingly? If any beast in which I have a valuable property do damage in another’s soil, in treading his grass, trespass will lie for it; but if my dog go into another man’s soil, no action will lie. See the case of Millan v. Hawtree, 1 Jones, 131, Poph. 161, Latch, 13, 119, that scienter is the gît of the action; and so is 1 Cro., where it was doubted whether the scienter should go to the keeping or quality; nor does it appear here but it was an accidental fierceness, or suppose it were an innate one to this dog particularly; and it had been given to the owner but an hour before, shall he take notice of all the qualities of his dog at his peril, or shall he have his action against the giver for bestowing him a naughty dog? In case a dog bites pigs, which almost all dogs will do, a scienter is necessary. 1 Cro. 255. And I do not doubt but if it be generally laid that a dog was used to bite animalia, and the defendant knew of it, it will be enough to charge him for biting of sheep, &c.; and by animalia shall not be intended frogs or mice, but such in which the plaintiff has property.
And judgment was given for the defendant by Holt, Chief-Justice, and Turton, Justice; Gould, J., mutante opinionem suam.[[270]]
De GRAY v. MURRAY
Supreme Court, New Jersey, June 8, 1903.
Reported in 69 New Jersey Law Reports, 458.
Gummere, C. J. This was an action to recover for injuries resulting to the plaintiff in error (the plaintiff below) from the bite of a dog, owned by the defendant in error, which attacked her while she was walking on the public street. At the close of the testimony the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff seeks to review the judgment entered upon that verdict.
It is the settled law that the owner of a dog will not be held responsible for injuries resulting to another person from its bite unless it be shown that the dog had previously bitten some one else, or was vicious, to the knowledge of the owner. Smith v. Donohue, 20 Vroom, 548, and cases cited.
[After discussing the evidence, and holding that there was an utter failure to prove scienter.]
But even if the evidence submitted would support the conclusion that the dog had a propensity to bite, and that what the defendant heard about its attack on the boy charged him with knowledge of that propensity, the direction of a verdict in his favor was not erroneous. In England, and in some of our sister states, it is held that the owner of an animal which has a propensity to attack and bite mankind, who keeps it with the knowledge that it has such a propensity, does so at his peril, and that his liability for injuries inflicted by it is absolute. A leading case is that of May v. Burdett, 9 Q. B. (N. S.) 112, in which it is stated that “the conclusion to be drawn from all the authorities appears to be this: that a person keeping a mischievous animal, with knowledge of its propensity, is bound to keep it secure at his peril, and that if it does mischief, negligence is presumed without express averment. The negligence is in keeping such an animal after notice.” Subsequently, the Court of Exchequer Chamber, adopting as accurate the principle underlying the decision of May v. Burdett, and referring to the opinion in that case, among others, as an authority for its conclusion, declared, in the case of Fletcher v. Rylands, L. R. 1 Exch. 265, that “one who, for his own purposes, brings upon his land, and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” The application of this principle led the court to fix liability upon the owner of land, who had stored water in a reservoir built thereon, for injury done to adjoining property by water escaping from the reservoir, notwithstanding that such escape was not due to any negligence on the part of the owner. Ten years after the decision of Fletcher v. Rylands, the rule laid down in that case was applied in this state, at circuit, in the case of Marshall v. Welwood, 9 Vroom, 339, and the owner of a steam boiler, which blew up and wrecked adjacent property, was held liable for the damage done, notwithstanding the fact that the bursting of the boiler was not due to any negligence on his part. The case was subsequently reviewed here, on rule to show cause, and this court, in a masterly opinion by the late Chief Justice Beasley, expressly disapproved of the doctrine laid down in Fletcher v. Rylands (which, as I have already stated, is rested, among other decisions, on May v. Burdett), and declared that no man is, in law, an insurer that the acts which he does, such acts being lawful and done with care, shall not injuriously affect others; and that an injury which results from a lawful act, done in a lawful manner, and without negligence on the part of the person doing the act, will not support an action. Applying that principle to the case in hand, this court then held that the owner of a steam boiler, which he has in use on his own property, is not responsible, in the absence of negligence, for the damages done by its bursting. The principle laid down in Marshall v. Welwood was reiterated by this court in the case of Hill v. Ulshowski, 32 Id. 375.
The right of a man to keep a vicious dog for the protection of his home and property is conceded in the case of Roehers v. Remhoff, 26 Vroom, 475. He is, of course, bound to exercise a degree of care, commensurate with the danger to others which will follow the dog’s escape from his control, to so secure it that it will not injure any one who does not unlawfully provoke or intermeddle with it. Worthen v. Love, 60 Vt. 285. But if the owner does use such care, and the dog nevertheless escapes and inflicts injury, he is not liable.