THWAITES et al. v. JACKSON

 THWAITES et al. v. JACKSON.

C. R. Nuwara Eliya, 882.

Brute animal-Injury by hunting dogs-Liability of owner for damages-Direct and consequential damages.

The owner of a pack of hunting dogs, which killed a calf while standing loose on a high road, is liable in damages to the owner of the calf.

The damages may include not only the value of the calf, but also the loss of milk consequent upon the death of the calf.

Folkard v. Anderson (Ramanathan's Reports, 1862, p. 68) commented upon.

Per Bonser, C. J. There seems to be no justification for the pro­position stated in Folkard v. Anderson that the amount of compen­sation should not exceed the value of the animal which caused the injury.

THE plaintiffs raised this action for the recovery of damages arising from the loss of a calf killed by some hounds belonging to the defendant. Plaintiffs claimed Rs. 20 as the value of the calf, and Rs. 80 for loss of milk and butter consequent upon the death of the calf.

The defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain this action, and answering to the merits, averred that while he was exercising with all proper care and precaution the right of hunting with his hounds, the calf in question strayed on the road, crossing the trail or scent of the defendant's hounds, and was seized and killed by them, notwithstanding all his efforts to prevent it; that the plaintiffs by their negligence contributed towards the accident; and that he tendered Rs. 20 to the plaintiffs as the value of the calf, which they refused to accept. He denied that plaintiffs had suffered any other damage.

The Commissioner held that plaintiffs' action was maintainable in law, but dismissed it, being of opinion that " the first plaintiff " was in the wrong in allowing his calf to stray on to and along " a public highway untended, and the defendant was in his right " when he passed along the highway with his hounds coupled."

The plaintiffs appealed.

Dornhorst (Jayewardene with him), for appellant,

The Commissioner is wrong in holding that the defendant is not liable in damages to the plaintiff for the injuries caused by his dogs.

The case of Folkard v. Anderson (Ramanathan, 1860-62, p. 68) settles the question. The law is also stated in Voet, IX. tit. 1, p. 538; also in Van Leeuwen's Commentaries, bk. IV. ch. 89, § 6.

Bawa, for respondent,

The defendant is not liable, because the calf was in a place where it ought not to have been, and the plaintiff contributed to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document