Democratic Sentinel, Volume 10, Number 27, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 August 1886 — Injuries by Dogs. [ARTICLE]

Injuries by Dogs.

In England and in some of the States of this country statutes have been passed -whereby the owner of a dog will be liable for any injury done, even if he did not know of his vicious character. He would not be justified in allowing a dog to run at large even on his own premises, for the owner of a dog keeps it at his own risk, being without regard to care or negligence an insurer against all the harm which he might reasonably have expected to ensue. Henry Austin, in his digest of “Farm Law,” states that in a Massachusetts case the Elaintiff was driving along a public ighway, and the defendant’s dog jumped at the horse and frightened him so that he became unmanageable, ran, and overturned the carriage, damaging the same and other property. Before the accident the defendant knew of no mischievous or vicious propensity in the dog to attack persons or animals. The defendant offered evidence to show that the plaintiff was unlawfully traveling on Sunday, and not from necessity or charity. But the Judge ruled that these facts would not constitute a defence, and obliged the owner of the dog to pay the sum adjudged by the jury as damages. In Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Tennessee want of knowledge is no defence, while in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Michigan a similar law exists, and the owners are liable for double the amount of damages sustained, which may be increased threefold- after actual notice to the owner of the animal’s disposition, in Maine, V.ermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin; The benefit of these statutes is not confined to the person directly injured. The parent or master of a child bitten by a Jpg w«y ojacover . double* damages. Tn New Hampshire and Massachusetts tVe'owner of. any- domestic animal, and in Wisconsin the owner of any sheep or -lambs may recover from the town for my. injury inflicted by a 'l* k , ,*% a*"’’

dog. The owner of the injured animal may, if he chooses, sue the of the dog instead of claiming his loss from the town. If he elects, however, prove his damages to the supervisors of the town, and accepts an order on the town treasurer for the amount, his claim becomes by operation of law transferred to the town, which may recover against the owner of the dog. The owner of the sheep cannot, therefore, recover against him. By the law of Rhode Island, the first time a dog worries sheep the owner may recover damages therefor of him who harbors or owns the dog. If, after such first notice, the dog still lives and injures sheep, his owner is liable for double damages, and the court wherein the action for damages is tried may order the dog to be killed. In Vermont, double damages may be recovered. In Connecticut, wh n a person has suffered damages by a dog’s worrying or killing his sheep, he must give notice to the selectmen of the town in which the damage has been done, and the selectmen may bring .suit for him against the owner of the offending dog; and unless the owner is reimbursed by this suit the town becomes liable to the owner of the sheep for such damage. When a man keeps a large and fiercelooking dog, which is in the habit of running out to the highway and furiously barking or attacking persons passing along, or horses passing in the neighborhood, the owner will be liable if the dog bites a person, although it is not shown that the dog had previously bitten any person. A dog may be so ferocious as to become a public nuisance, and in such cases, if the owner persistently permits it to run at large, any person may kill it.— American Cultivator.