Baker v Snell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1908 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Savage Dog - Keeping with Knowledge of Vice - Intervening Act of Third Person causing Dog to bite - Liability of Owner - Remoteness of Damage.
The defendant was the owner of a dog known by him to be savage. A servant of the defendant who was entrusted with the custody of the dog incited it to attack the plaintiff, and thereupon the dog flew at and bit the plaintiff:—
Held by Channell J., that (apart from consideration of the fact that the person so inciting the dog was the defendant's servant) the defendant could not be held liable for the injury inflicted, inasmuch as the keeping of the dog was not the proximate cause of the injury; but that there was evidence from which a jury might infer that the act of the servant was done in neglect of his duty as custodian of the dog, and that his master was therefore liable.
By Sutton J., that, as the gist of such an action is the keeping of the animal with knowledge of its vicious propensity, the defendant kept it at his peril, and was liable for any injury done by it, even though the injury was brought about as the result of the wilful act of a third person.
APPEAL from the Bow County Court.
The plaintiff was a housemaid in the employment of the defendant, a licensed victualler. The defendant kept upon his premises a dog which was known by him to be savage. It was the duty of the defendant's potman to let the dog out early in the morning, and then chain it up again before the plaintiff and the barmaids came downstairs. On the occasion in question the potman brought the dog into the kitchen, where the plaintiff and the barmaids were at breakfast, and said, “I will bet the dog will not bite any one in the room.” He then let the dog go, and said “Go it, Bob.” The dog then flew at the plaintiff and bit her. It had previously bitten the plaintiff and other persons to the defendant's knowledge. The county court judge held that the act of the potman was in fact an assault, for which the defendant was not liable, and he accordingly nonsuited the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed.
Head (Profumo with him), for the plaintiff. A person who keeps an animal known to be dangerous keeps it at his peril.
The gist of the action is the keeping it after knowledge of its mischievous propensities: May v. Burdett.F1 It is a wrongful act to keep such an animal at all, and the owner is responsible for any damage resulting from its escape, even though...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Keppel Bus Company Ltd v Sa'ad bin Ahmad
-
Robison (Dave) and anor v Inez Brown
...the act done, albeit unauthorized and unlawful, is done in the course of the employment; that question is itself a question of fact. In Baker v Snell , [1908] 2 KB 352; at 355; affd. [1908] 2 KB 825, CA Channel J, after saying that the defendant's liability would depend on whether his serv......
-
Attorney General v Reid et Al; Attorney General v Engerbretson et Al; Engerbretson v Americana Jamaica Corporation; Reid v Americana Jamaica Corporation
...1 W.L.R. 1082 decided in the Privy Council, in delivery the judgment of the Board, Lord Kilbrandon expressed it in this way at 1084: “In Baker v. Snell [1908] 2 K.B. 352 (approved [1908, 2 K.B. 825), Channel J after saying that the defendant's liability would depend on whether his servant'......
-
Keppel Bus Co Ltd v Sa'ad bin Ahmad
...albeit unauthorized and unlawful, is done in the course of the employment; that question is itself a question of fact. In Baker v Snell [1908] 2 KB 352 (approved [1908] 1 KB 825), Channell J, after saying that the defendant`s liability would depend on whether his servant`s wrongful act was ......