Lynch v. McNally

Citations

• 7 Daly 126

Syllabus

<p>An action for an injury inflicted by the bite of a vicious dog, which the owner, with a knowledge of its propensities, suffers to go at large, is not founded upon the ordinary liability for negligence; but upon the ground that to harbor such an animal and allow him to go freely about or in the public thoroughfare, shows such a disregard for the safety and lives of others as to partake of the character of a willful wrong, which, in itself, constitutes the cause of action for the injury inflicted by the animal. In such an action, therefore, no such defense can arise to defeat the action, as contributory or co-operative negligence. Negligence on the part of the plaintiff, however, may be shown, but it goes only in mitigation of damages.</p> <p>The liability of the owner or harhorer of the dog rests upon his knowledge of the animal’s dangerous propensities, and his allowing him to go at large where he may inflict injury.</p> <p>The authorities in the case of injuries by ferocious animal reviewed.</p> <p>Where the defendant on cross-examination elicited the same statement that the witness had made on the direct, and then moved to strike it out, which the court refused:—Held, that he was not injured; for if his motion had been granted, it would not have shut out the evidence, as it was in on the direct, and it was then ' too late to strike it out in the direct.</p>