Case Name: James Corcoran, by John Corcoran, his guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. Thomas Kelly, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12
Citations: 61 Misc. 323
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Corcoran, by John Corcoran, his guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. Thomas Kelly, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 323–325

Head Matter:
James Corcoran, by John Corcoran, his guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. Thomas Kelly, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
December, 1908.)
Animals — Liability of owner for acts of animal — Necessity of notice of dangerous propensity.
Negligence: Acts or omissions constituting negligence — Personal conduct in general — Leaving horse loose or unattended: Proximate cause of injury — Cause of injury in general — Bite of a horse.
In an action to recover damages from being bitten by a horse, the fact that the horse at the time was standing unhitched in the street near the curb, eating oats from the ground, does not dispense with proof of knowledge on the part of the owner of the vicious propensity of the horse.
In such a case, leaving the horse unhitched is not the proximate cause of the injury; but the proximate cause thereof is the vicious propensity of the horse.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, third district, borough of Manhattan.
William A. Jones, Jr., for appellant.
Samuel Deutsch, for respondent.

Opinion:
Ford, J.
The plaintiff, a child of eleven years, was passing a two-horse team and wagon standing near the curb. The horses were unhitched. One of them bit the plaintiff as he was passing by. It was about one o'clock and the horses were eating oats from the ground. Plaintiff recovered judgment and the defendant appeals.
The theory of the trial justice seems to have been that proof of scienter was unnecessary because the horse was unhitched and that fact brought the case within the rule that one who negligently permits an animal to be at large is held liable for damages caused by it. I think this view is erroneous. There is a wide difference between a horse permitted to roam at large and a work horse hitched to a wagon standing on the street eating oats. Negligence cannot be predicated on the mere leaving of a horse unattended for the time being in the street while it partakes of its midday meal. In any event the so leaving of the horse was not the proximate cause of the accident. The vicious propensity of the horse was. But to recover for the bite or kick of a vicious animal, knowledge of its vicious nature must be proved. No such proof was offered unless we take as such proof the fact that after the occurrence a muzzle was placed upon the horse. But that might indicate extra precaution instead of previous knowledge of the biting propensity of the animal. It seems to me clearly to be a case where a scienter must be shown.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.
Hendrick, J., concurs.