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.
316
THE LAW OF MOTION PICTURES
“Hence the gist of such an action as this is not the keeping of the dog with knowledge of his dangerous nature, but rather the negligent failure to properly restrain the animal, and to keep him so safely that he may not injure anyone who is lawfully at the place.” 56 Where the owner is free from all negligence and the animal escapes, the owner is not liable.57 Nor is the owner
a boy of nine years, came upon the cages and was injured. Held that the defendant was not brought within the rule making it absolutely liable for beasts ferae naturae, unless negligence on his part could be shown, and that as no negligence was here shown, a verdict in favor of plaintiff was reversed.
56 Hayes v. Smith (1900), 62 Ohio St. 161; 56 N. E. 879.
See also: Thomas v. Bay son (1901), 21 Ohio C. C. 778; Fake v. Addicks (1890), 45 Minn. 37; 47 N. W. 450; Melsheimer v. Sullivan (1891), 1 Colo. App. 22; 27 Pac. 17; Meibus v. Dodge (1875), 38 Wis. 300; Worthen v. Lore (1888), 60 Vt. 285; 14 Atl. 461; Graham v. Payne (1889), 122 Ind. 403; 24 N. E. 216.
57 Connor v. The Princess Theatre (Can.), 10 D. L. R. 143; 4 O. W. N. 502; 27 Ont. L. Rep. 466; 49 C. L. J. 118. Plaintiff was injured by a trained monkey which performed in the theatre
of defendants. Held that defendants were not liable as they had not been guilty of any negligence, the monkey having been insecurely fastened by a stranger.
See also: Du Tremble v. Poulin (Can.), 42 Que. S. C. 121.
De Gray v. Murray (1903), 69 N. J. L. 458; 55 Atl. 237. Defendant was accustomed to keeping a vicious dog locked up for the night. The dog managed to chew away the woodwork around the lock of his house, and escaped, injuring plaintiff early the following morning. Defendant held not liable.
Scribner v. Kelly (1862), 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 14. Defendant owned an elephant. Plaintiff’s horse became frightened thereat and caused the injury. Held that while the defendant’s negligence was presumed, there was no proof here that he was anything but careful, and the complaint was dismissed.