THE LAW OF BITES

Hokitika Guardian, 15 March 1928, Page 4

THE LAW OF BITES

“Is the owner of a horse who knows i that his steed b< accustomed to bite ; other horses liable for damages il it i bites a human being?’’ It was de- - c-itled many years ago that a person 1 keeping it mischievous animal with ; knowledge of its propensities is bound i to keep it secure at his peril. If it • escapes and does mischief, be is liable without proof of negligence, and proof , is not required that he knew the animal to bo mischievous, il it be of a notoriously fierce or mischievious species. If, however, the animal be of a tame and domestic, kind, the owner is liable only on proof that he knew the particular animal to be “accustomed to bite mankind.” It was this rule that gave rise to the statement, “one dog—one bite,” meaning, thereby. that unless a plaintiff can prove that the dog had previously Ibittrn another person he could not recover damages for his bite. 6o far as clogs are concerned, this has been altered by special legislation in Xew South Wales by an Act called the Hog and Goat Act, 1898, which enacts that an owner of a dog is liable in damages for any injury committed by bis clog. There is no such legislation in England. The Court of Appeal in England, however, bad recently to consider the liability of tilt owner of a horse in a ease in which the plaintiff was crossing from one side of the street to another, and hacl to pass in front of a stationary one-horse van. The horse was muzzled, but as he wits passing it stretched out its head and made for the face of tire plaintiff, and injured it. as the jury found, to the extent of £2o. Evidence was given for plaintiff that on a previous occasion the horse had bitten another horse, and that since the injury to the plaintiff it had attempted to bite other horses. Xo evidence was given to show that horses which bit other horses would bite mankind. Lord Justice Sc-rutton, who delivered the decision, said: “It appeared to him. that- when there was a finding that the owner of the horse knew that it , was accustomed to bite other horses, that was not sufficient to establish liability for damage of a different kind, namely, for biting, not animals, but- i human beings.” The plaintiff, there- i fore, got no damages, but had, in i addition to- his injuries, to pay his own and the defendant’s costs. I