Toole v. Paumie Parisian Dye House

I think instruction No. 23 was properly refused for three reasons: First. Here it was shown without conflict that defendant’s employees were warned of the fact that they were discharging water onto the roadway. Knowledge of that fact made defendants liable for the natural and proximate consequences of its original wrongdoing, even though it could not foresee the particular results which followed. (Ulmen v. Schwieger, 92 Mont. 331, 12 Pac. (2d) 856.) Thus if A knowingly places an animal on another’s land, and it there injures one in the exercise of reasonable care for his own safety, A cannot…