River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1914-04-09
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
BY Walter K. Towers, A. g., J. o., OF the
Michigan Bar.
When An Animal Does Damage
Michigan Bar.

of amusement called the "Hippo-
drome." A part of its attractions
is a wild animal show, the cages
containing lions and other ami
mails. Some time ago, young
lady, Miss Cushman by name,
went to an afternoon performance
as q guest of one of her friends
who was one of the exhibitors and
trainers of the animal show. At
the instance of her friend she was
admitted by the cork e e er
without purchasing a ticket After
the show had closed Miss Cush
man loitered about waiting for her
friend to appear. She came near
the bars of the arena and lioness,
either attracted by the red hat
which Miss Cushman wore, or be-
cause Of it's natural viciousness,
reached through the bars and
seized the young lady by the head
She was seriously injured before
she was extricated. She brought
suit against the proprietors.
The court held in the first place
that though she had not purchas-
ed a ticket she was not tres
passer, but was legally and pro-
perly on the premises and SO was
owed the same degree of care and
protection as any other visitor.
It was further held that while it
is not unlawful for a person to
keep wild animals, though they
may be such as are by nature
fierce and dangerous, it is their
ner as to absolutely prevent in
jury to others. AS they had fail
ed to do this they were respon-
sible for the results and Miss
Cushman recovered damages to
the extent of $4,000.
In a similar case a small boy at
tended a combination moving-pic-
ture show and museum where
monkey was running at large
without restraint The boy, hav-
ing seen others feed the monkey,
began to give it peanuts. The
monkey dropped one of the pea
nuts and the boy stopped to pick
it up. This seemed to enrage the
monkey which attacked the boy,
biting him on the leg. For this
injury he sued. The court held
that a monkey is an animal nat
urally wild and vicious, and that
the keeper of such an animal must
prevent it's injuring another at his
peril. AS the boy was not directly
responsible for the attack he was
entitled to recover damages.
These cases illustrate the gener-
al rule of law that one who keeps
an animal that is wild by nature
does so at his peril and for all re-
sulting damage must be held re-
sponsible. These are the respon-
sibilities which one assumes by
keeping what is commonly known
as a "wild" animal
In the case of domestic animals
the rule is somewhat different
One who keeps an animal which
has been domesticated and cannot
be classed as necessarily vicious
by nature is not necessarily liza BILE
for all damages. One who keeps
a domestic animal which is not
naturally inclined to commit mis-
chief, while he must use all rea-
sonable means to prevent it's do
in any damage, is not legally re-
sponsible should it chance to do
unforeseeable damage at a place
where it had a right to be. But
if it be demonstrated that the an
imal was in fact vicious and fur
Their that the owner knew of that
fact, or should have known it.
then he will be responsible for the
injury Thus in the case of dom
este animals the owners respon-
sibility depends upon his know
ledge of the animals vici o us
traits.
The increasing of the liability
of the owner because of his know
ledge of his animals viciousness
is a rule of law that is found in
the Scriptures. In Exodus xxi 49,
20 it is written: off an OK gore a
man or woman, that they die
then the OK shall surely be stoned
and the flesh shall not be eaten
but the owner of the OK shall be
quit. But if the OK were wont to
push with his horn in the past
and it hath been testified to his
owner, and he hath not kept him
in, but that he hath killed a man
or a woman; the OK shall be ston-
ed and his owner shall also be put
to DEATH"
The reason for "a Stino this SDec-