{"id":8902,"date":"2013-04-02T13:21:30","date_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:21:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/legaldictionary.lawin.org?p=8902"},"modified":"2013-04-02T13:21:30","modified_gmt":"2013-04-02T13:21:30","slug":"cox-v-burbidge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawlegal.eu\/cox-v-burbidge\/","title":{"rendered":"Cox V. Burbidge"},"content":{"rendered":"
((1863), 13 C. B. (N.S.) 430). The owner of an animal domitice naturce is not liable for damage done by it, unless the knows that it has mischievous propensities (scienter).
The plaintiff, a young child, was playing on the highway, and a horse, the property of the defendant, was straying on the, highway and kicked the child. Held, the defendant was not liable, as the act was not in accordance with the ordinary instinct of the horse, which was not proved to be vicious<\/p>\n<\/h4>\n
You might be interested in these references tools:<\/p>\n