In this view of the principles which should govern the determination of this case, the injury to the plaintiff must be deemed an aggravation of the trespass committed by the animal in entering the garden. This injury, indeed, is not such as a cow is ordinarily prone to commit; and there is no evidence that the defendant’s cow had contracted the habit of making such assaults. But the act of the animal was one to which a creature of that kind is naturally disposed on being disturbed while feeding; and it was so directly associated with the primary trespass that, unless the plaintiff’s right to prevent a continuance of this be denied, there can be no ground for questioning the liability of the owner. This right cannot be controverted, for under the circumstances the act of the plaintiff is to be regarded as that of the tenant of the premises. The act of the animal by which the plaintiff was injured, so far from being independent of the primary trespass, or unrelated to it, grew directly out of the propensity in which this originated, coupled with the plaintiff’s attempt to prevent its continuance. The defendant’s fifth point was therefore properly refused. The case was submitted to the jury with suitable instructions, and their finding on the questions involved was concurred in by the trial court.
The judgment is affirmed.
Wickham, J. (dissenting.) ... We are called on to determine whether the rule, so far as our authority goes, shall be established in Pennsylvania, that the owner of a useful, gentle, and domestic animal, belonging to a class recognized from the earliest times as harmless to man, watched, driven to and from the pasture fields, fed and milked by women and children the world over, shall be responsible for the conduct of the animal, foreign to its well-known nature and habits, if it happen that through any negligence of such owner, or his servant, it is permitted to trespass on the land of another, and there injures a third party.
The authorities on this subject are numerous and impossible to reconcile. Some of them rest on statutes or ordinances, not always adverted to in the text-books or digests, in which they are hastily cited. Others are based on the theory, that the right to recover exists because of the trespass to realty, and that any unusual and not to be expected injury caused by the animal to the person of the owner of the land, or his other property, must be alleged and proved by way of aggravation of damages. Another class of cases holds that all injuries committed by an animal, in a place where it has no right to be, must be compensated for by the owner. It is on the latter theory of the law that the plaintiff must recover, if she can sustain her action, as we do not deem it worth while to notice the few erratic and sporadic cases, seemingly decided on no discoverable reason, except an assumed natural equity, that any one injured by anything, animate or inanimate, belonging to another, should be compensated by the owner.
As has already been observed, the plaintiff was not the owner of the land trespassed upon, and it may be remarked that she is aided by no statute.
It is argued that the appellant’s cow was vicious. There is no evidence even suggesting such a tendency, and the learned trial judge so instructed the jury. Conceding that the animal was breachy, as alleged by the plaintiff, this indicated no ferocity or proneness to attack people. Any one, acquainted with the nature and habits of horses and cows, knows that usually the most intelligent and gentle animals of these species are the most cunning and successful in finding their way into forbidden inclosures and the readiest to run away when discovered. As was said in Keshan v. Gates, 2 Thomp. & C. (N. Y. Sup. Ct.) 288: “The vicious habits or propensities which the owner of an animal must, when known to him, guard against, are such as are directly dangerous, such as kicking and biting in horses, and hooking in horned animals, and biting in dogs. These habits or propensities may be indulged in at any moment and are inevitably dangerous.”
The adoption of the rule, sanctioned by the decisions of many respectable tribunals in other states, that the owner of every trespassing domestic animal is liable merely because it is a trespasser for all injuries it may commit, however contrary to its usual nature and disposition, and regardless of his knowledge of its special viciousness, might often lead to strange and unthought-of consequences. For instance, suppose that a pet lamb, always regarded as a harmless playmate of children, is permitted to wander from its owner’s premises into those of a neighbor (this as well as the next illustration is not a supposititious case), and there, in play or anger, butts a child from a high veranda, or a trespassing hatching hen, discovered on its nest by the little son of the owner of the premises, pecks out the eye of the boy as he is lawfully trying to drive it away, the unfortunate owner would be liable in each instance for all the resulting damages. In vain would he urge that the animal causing the injury belonged to a class ordinarily docile in its nature and harmless to man; that he had no reason to anticipate that it would do such unusual mischief; and that he was only responsible for the things hens, lambs, and milch cows usually do and may be expected to do when trespassing, that is, for the natural and probable consequences of their trespasses. The answer, under the rule we are considering, would be: “You were guilty of negligence in permitting your animal to trespass, and therefore you are liable for all its freaks, for the consequences of the wrong, near and remote, probable and improbable, for the things you had reason to anticipate, and those which no one would be likely to think could happen, save as a remote possibility.” The results which might follow the application of such a rule demand its rejection, where it has not already been fully adopted.
The only negligence of the defendant revealed by the evidence was his failure to keep his cow out of the garden of the plaintiff’s son. To the latter, the defendant would certainly be liable for the harm done to the realty, but as he had no notice or knowledge of any vicious or ferocious propensity on the part of the animal, we do not think that he should be mulcted in damages for the unfortunate injury suffered by the plaintiff, nor, for that matter, even to the owner of the land, had such owner been injured in like manner. The appellant’s fifth point, asking the court to direct a verdict in his favor, should have been affirmed.