We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
314
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
injury 52 and the fact that plaintiff was a trespasser upon the premises whereon the animals were kept did not defeat a recovery.53
to keep such an animal in places of public resort is or may be liable for the injuries inflicted by it on a party who is not guilty of negligence and is otherwise without fault ... in actions for injuries by such beasts it is not necessary to allege that the owner knew them to be mischievous, for he is presumed to have such knowledge, from wrhich it follow’s that he is guilty of negligence in permitting the same to be at large.”
See also: Woodbridge v. Marks (1896), 5 A. D. (N. Y.) 604; 40 N. Y. Supp. 728; Brooks v. Taylor (1887), 65 Mich. 208; 31 N. W. 837; Popplewell v. Pierce (Eng.) (1852), 10 Cush. 509; Snow v. McCracken (1895), 107 Mich. 49; 64 N. W. 866; Partlow v. Haggerty (1870), 35 Ind. 178; Williams v. Moray (1881), 74 Ind. 25.
62 Gooding v. Chutes (1909),' 102 Pac. (Cal.) 819; 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1071. Defendant was keeping animals for exhibition at a place called “The Chutes.” Plaintiff was employed to look
after them, and in particular a camel of vicious propensities.
“ It is the duty of one who owns or keeps domestic animals known to be vicious 4o guard them in such a manner as will absolutely prevent the occurrence of an injury to others through such vicious acts of the animals as they are naturally inclined to commit. . . . This language is used in the authority cited with respect to the duty of an owmer of wild animals, which are presumed to be ferocious.”
Hays v. Miller (1907), 43 So. (Ala.) 818. The owmer of a wolf was held liable for injuries inflicted by the animal.
“On the other hand the owner of wild animals ferae naturae is as a general rule liable for injuries done by them. It is not necessary to prove that the owmer had knowledge of the vicious nature of a wild animal causing injury, as he is conclusively presumed to have such knowledge. Neither is it necessary to show that the owner was negligent in permitting the animal to be at
63 Marble v. Ross (1878), 124 Mass. 44.