Court Opinion

ID: 9683692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:35:23.189239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:49.691795
License: Public Domain

*128W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice
(dissenting) .
I am unable to agree with the opinion of the majority and therefore respectfully enter my dissent.
The evidence as I view it fails to show that appellees or their employees were guilty of negligence which enabled the Brahman bull “Hitler” to escape from the Sports Arena in Brackenridge Park.
The evidence fails to show that this bull was known to appellees to be a vicious and dangerous animal. The fact that he proved to be vicious on the occasion in question does not establish the fact that appellees had prior knowledge of his vicious propensities. The undisputed evidence is that as a general rule Brahman bulls try to get away from people rather than to attack them and that appellees 'had no knowledge that Hitler was different from other Brahman bulls.
We find the rule stated in 2 Am.Jur. p. 728, § 48, as follows:
“In General. — The owner of an animal not naturally vicious is not answerable for an injury done by it when in a place where it had a right to be, unless it was, in fact and to his knowledge, vicious. If, being theretofore of a peaceable disposition, it suddenly and unexpectedly, while in the charge of its owner or his servants, inflicts injury on another, neither, if at that time due care was exercised, is answerable. But if one knowingly keeps a vicious or dangerous animal, which is accustomed to attack and injure mankind, the rule usually stated is that he is prima facie liable for injuries done by it, without proof of negligence as to the manner of keeping it. The negligence on which the liability is founded is keeping such an animal with knowledge of its propensities. The gist of the action is keeping the animal with knowledge of its vicious disposition. When an animal of a species not naturally dangerous to mankind has been found by its owner to possess a vicious or dangerous disposition, it passes into the class of animals which the owner keeps at his peril. As respects the liability of the owner, there is no distinction between the case of an animal which breaks through the tameness of its nature and is fierce, and is known by its owners to be so, and one which is ferae naturae.
“It is sufficient if the owner has seen or heard enough to convince a man of ordinary prudence of the animal’s inclination to commit the class of injuries complained of. The question in each case is whether the notice was sufficient to put the owner on his guard and to require him, as an ordinarily prudent man, to anticipate the injury which has actually occurred. It is not essential, in order to fasten liability on the owner, that he have notice of a previous injury to others if he knew, or ought to have known, that the animal had dangerous propensities. In other words, the owner of an animal of a species which is ordinarily harmless is not liable for an injury done by it to a person unless the animal was accustomed to injuring persons or had an inclination to do so to the knowledge of the owner. The owner of a domestic animal may be chargeable with notice of its viciousness through his neglect to take notice of its vicious habits. It has been stated, however, that it is not enough to charge the owner of a dog that he might have known of the vicious or mischievous propensities of the dog by the exercise of reasonable care.
“If the owner of a domestic animal has notice of its propensity to commit the class of injuries complained of, it is immaterial that the animal was not cross or savage but acted in good nature and playfulness, as the intent of the animal is not material where its attentions are hurtful.
“While the ancient rule as generally found stated is that the gist of an action for injuries inflicted by a ferocious animal is keeping it with knowledge of its vicious propensities, negligence or the want of negligence being deemed immaterial, to some courts a more accurate statement of the true principle governing the owner’s legal responsibility seems to be that the gist of the action is the failure to keep such animal securely, it being said that there is no liability for securely keeping a ferocious animal with knowledge of its vicious disposition. There is also some authority *129to the effect that there is no 'liability for an injury by an animal of known viciousness unless there is negligence or want of reasonable care in so keeping the animal as to prevent its doing injury, and that the liability of an owner for injuries committed by an animal known to be viciou's is prima facie only, not absolute, and may be avoided by showing diligence in restraining the animal commensurate with its known propensities.”
This not being a case in which a known vicious and dangerous animal was being kept by its owners, a recovery can be had only upon a proof of negligence on the part of the owners which was the proximate cause of the injuries and damages complained of by appellants. I do' not find that one single act of negligence on the part of appellees or their agents was established by the evidence. The nearest approach to a showing of negligence is that the man guarding the gate at the south end of the arena abandoned his post and climbed the fence when the 'bull charged the gate and thereby permitted the bull to escape from the arena. There is no evidence indicating that a man of ordinary prudence would have done anything differently from what this man did. It would seem that had he acted otherwise he would probably have lost his life. There is nothing to show that it was negligence for the man guarding the gate to open it for the purpose of permitting additional cowboys to come into the arena to help subdue the bull. Apparently the entire trouble resulted from the fact that the bull suddenly and unexpectedly charged the gate in such a manner as not to give the gateman time to close the gate but forced him to flee for his own safety. There is no evidence here that there was any defect of any kind in any of the pens, chutes, fences or gates used in connection with the Rodeo.
Likewise, there is no evidence that there were an insufficient number of cowboys who attempted to recapture the bull after he escaped, or that they were lacking in skill and ability to do so. The only evidence is that when they roped at the bull they missed. This does not in itself show negligence.
The burden was upon the appellants to introduce evidence sufficient to show that appellees were guilty of negligence in allowing the bull to escape from the arena or that they were negligent in not sooner capturing or killing the bull, which burden appellants, in my opinion, have not discharged.
If appellees were not guilty of negligence in allowing a bull of known vicious propensities to escape, then the only other possible theory upon which appellants could recover would be that appellees permitted the bull to run at large in violation of law. We have no general statute in this State prohibiting owners from allowing their livestock to run at large. The only such laws are local option laws of which courts do not take judicial notice. Hill v. State, 58 Cr.R. 79, 124 S.W. 940; McCormick and Ray of Texas Law of Evidence, § 83, p. 138. A party who is relying on a local option statute must allege and prove that the necessary steps have been taken to put such laws in effect in the territory where the injury or trespass is alleged to have occurred. Here there is no allegation or proof of a local stock law so we must presume none was in effect.
Section 14 of Article 1015, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.Stats., empowers a city to adopt an ordinance “To prevent, regulate and control the driving of cattle, horses and other animals into or through the city.” There was no allegation or proof that the City of San Antonio has ever enacted such an ordinance, and we cannot presume that it has. Courts do not take judicial notice of city ordinances. Wigmore on Evidence, § 2572, p. 552; Jones on Evidence, § 116, p. 200.
So far as this record shows it is not unlawful for an owner to permit his cattle to run at large in the City of San Antonio.
We do have a general statute, Art. 1370a, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., which makes it unlawful for an owner to permit his livestock to run at large, unattended upon any designated highway of this State that is fenced on both sides. There is no contention here that the injury complained of occurred upon a designated highway of this State fenced upon both sides.
*130There is no evidence here that this bull was unlawfully running at large, even though the evidence had shown that he was purposely turned out to go where he pleased. The only possible grounds of recovery would be that appellees, with knowledge that this bull was likely to attack mankind if permitted to run at large, did not use ordinary care to prevent his escape. The evidence does not establish this want of care and therefore in my opinion the trial court properly instructed a verdict for appellees.
I have not found any cases in this State or elsewhere directly in point. However, I have found some cases in other jurisdictions that are enlightening. The case of McKee v. Trisler, 311 Ill. 536, 143 N.E. 69, 72, 33 A.L.R. 1298, is a case where the owner of a bull was sued for the loss of a mule gored to death b)r the bull. In Illinois the stock law is just the opposite of the law in Texas, in that the owner is required to fence his stock in and other landowners are not required to fence stock out. The bull escaped from his owner and went upon the premises of the plaintiff and there gored his mule to death. There the Court said: “There was a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant, and it is argued that the court erred in denying the motion, because there was no evidence that the defendant had any knowledge that the bull was accustomed to commit injuries. The defendant knew that he owned the bull, and was keeping him in his field, and was chargeable with knowledge of the propensities of bulls and their habits. It was not necessary, however, to prove scienter. The gist of the action was a trespass in breaking into and entering the plaintiff's close, and in such a case the damages resulting are recovered as an aggravation of the trespass. The necessity of scienter is only in cases where an animal was in a place where it had a right to be, and, if the bull was unlawfully trespassing on the land of plaintiff, the nature and extent of the damages are to be determined from the injury done. 1 Addison on Torts, 381; Cooley on Torts, 340; Saxton v. Bacon, 31 Vt. 540; 1 Thompson on Negligence, §§ 842, 875; 1 R.C.L. 1092; 1 Corpus Juris, 94.”
It is clear to my mind that if the law in Illinois had been the same as it is in Texas the instructed verdict would have been given.
Another interesting case is that of Walker v. Nickerson, 291 Mass. 522, 197 N.E. 451. In that case a cow escaped from the defendant’s land, strayed upon the plaintiff’s land and while there “butted” the plaintiff and knocked her to* the ground. The stock law of Massachusetts requires an owner to fence his cattle in and in that respect is different from the law of Texas. The court held that the cow was a trespasser upon plaintiff’s land, or she escaped through a defective fence. The court further found that plaintiff did not have to prove scienter because of the duty of the defendant to keep his cattle on his own premises at his peril.
Another interesting case is that of Fraser v. Chapman 256 Mass. 1, 152 N.E. 44, wherein the owner of a ram, known to him to be vicious, permitted it to escape from his premises and onto the premises of another. The plaintiff, a lady, attempted to drive the ram out of a strawberry patch and was bunted by it and seriously injured. It was unlawful to permit rams to run at large at the time and place where the injuries occurred. The court held that defendant having failed to keep securely on his own premises a ram, known to be likely to attack mankind, was responsible for the damage irrespective of any negligence on his part. Some states do not go this far. Even though a defendant is keeping a domestic animal with knowledge of its vicious propensities, according to some decisions he is not liable for damages which it may cause if it escaped without fault on his part. 3 C.J.S., Animals, § 146, p. 1247.