Case Name: CORCORAN v. KELLY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-12-24
Citations: 113 N.Y.S. 686
Docket Number: 
Parties: CORCORAN v. KELLY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 113
Pages: 686–687

Head Matter:
CORCORAN v. KELLY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 24, 1908.)
1. Animals (§ 70 )—Personal Injuries—Knowledge oe Vicious Propensities—“Run at Large.”
Allowing a vicious horse to eat in the street unattended and unhitched while attached to a wagon was not a negligent permitting of the animal to run at large such as would render the owner liable for damages caused by it; and, to entitle a passerby to recover for a bite of the horse, the owner’s previous knowledge of its vicious propensity must be shown.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. § 228; Dec. Dig. § 70.*
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 604-607.]
2. Municipal Corporations (§ 705*)—Use oe Street—Liability eor Injury —Proximate Cause—Bite by Horse.
If a vicious horse was negligently left standing in the street and bit a passerby, the vicious propensity of the horse, and not the leaving of the horse unattended, was the proximate cause of the injury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 705.*]
3. Animals (§ 74*) — Personal Injuries —Actions—Knowledge oe Vicious Propensities—Evidence.
In an action for the bite of a horse, evidence held not to show the owner's previous knowledge of its vicious propensity.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Animals, Cent. Dig. § 268; Dec. Dig. § 74.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by James Corcoran by John Corcoran, his guardian ad litem, against Thomas Kelly. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and EORD, JJ.
William A. Jones, Jr., for appellant.
Samuel Deutsch, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to Sate, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
EORD, J.
The plaintiff, a child of 11 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 1 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 the event.
HENDRICK, J., concurs.