Principles

·  Tort—Animals—Scienter action—Camel bite—Requirement of knowledge of dangerous character

·  Tort—Contributory negligence—Animals—Defence in scienter action—Camel bites man tying head in manner called “Um Balgeim”

To prove negligence in the defendant owner of a camel which bit plaintiff, plaintiff must prove defendant’s knowledge of the camel’s vicious tendencies.
 Obiter dictum: The fact that plaintiff tied the camel’s head in a painful manner known as “Um Balgeim” may be considered contributory negligence.
 

Judgment

 M. E. Mobarak P.J. July 30. 1963: —The application by plaintiff for revision is summarily dismissed.

  It is stated in Clerk and Lindsell, Torts, 652—653 (11th ed., 1954), when dealing with “Animals with Mischievous Propensities”:

  “A person who keeps an animal which he knows has a propensity to do a particular kind of mischief is liable for any damage due to that propensity without proof of negligence. He is under an absolute duty to keep it from doing that kind of mischief. . .. Where a ram, which was known to be dangerous, attacked a man, its owner was held liable on the ground that ‘there is no distinction between the case of an animal which breaks through the tameness of its nature, and is fierce, and known by the owner to be so, and one which is ferae naturae.’ Similarly, where a bull, known to be prone to run at anything red, injured a man wearing a red handkerchief, liability was established without proof of negligence. Also, when a dog was accustomed to chase game, its owner was held liable for the resulting damage.

  “Knowledge of a propensity to do a particular kind of mischief is termed scienter. Scienter must be proved with regard to the individual animal. t is not enough to show that animals of that kind have a natural propensity to do the damage in question, although It may be shown that the individual animal has a propensity which Is not uncommon in animals of that kind, as, for example, for a dog to worry sheep. It must also be shown that the propensity is, to the owner’s knowledge, to do the kind of damage in question. Pc example, in an action for the worrying of Sheep by a dok1s enough to prove that the dog had previously bitten men, or in a claim by a man for being bitten by a dog to show that the dog had previously bitten a goat, or that a horse which had bitten the plaintiff had previously bitten other horses.

“Scienter can be proved by showing that the animal has already done the kind of damage in question. In the case of a dog one bite, known to the owner, has been held to be enough, although only half an hour elapsed between the first bite and the second. But it is not necessary to prove even one bite, if it can be proved that c knew that the dog was a furious dog, that is to say, a dog likely to bite without provocation. This may be done by showing that the dog was in a habit of jumping at everyone who passed his kennel, endeavouring to bite them, or that the owner warned people to keep away from his dog, or in the case of a bull, that the owner knew that the bull would run at anything red.

            “It is not necessary to prove that the animal is always ferocious. It is enough if the animal is known to be fierce at certain seasons, as, for example, a bitch with puppies.

  “Proof of scienter is not required when the cause of action is trespass, or breach of contract.

  “Even when scienter is proved, the injured party who had interfered with the animal may have his damages reduced under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945 Where a child tried to induce a savage dog to play with him and put his arm round the neck of the dog, which thereupon bit him, the owner was held not liable, because the injuries were the r of the interference by the child with the dog.”

 In this case it was not proved that the defendant knew his camel to be dangerous and in the habit of biting other persons. The evidence of D.W. 2, Mohamed Fideil, and D.W. 3, Beshir Ahmed, proves that the plaintiff tried to tie the head of the camel in a certain manner called “Um Balgeim” which is done by putting a rope inside the mouth of the camel and then tying it up. This is a painful thing to the camel and so it bit the plaintiff. This can amount to contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff