Hill Ex Rel. Hill v. Moseley

One who keeps on his premises a domestic animal of known vicious propensity is responsible in law to another whom he has wrongfully exposed to danger of attack by such animal, and who has been injured thereby. Harris v. Fisher, 115 N. C., 318, 20 S. E., 461; Harper, The Law of Torts (1933), sec. 175; 2 Cooley, The Law of Torts (4th Ed., 1932), see. 267; 2 Am. Jur., sec. 63.

Under most authorities, injuries to persons by domestic animals whose vicious propensities are known to the keeper are classified as strict torts without reference to the principles governing negligence cases. Harper,…