Lord Justice-Clerk —I do not think that this is a case in which we ought to interfere with the judgment of the Sheriff. I think that the Sheriff was right in allowing the amendment of the record, and I also am of opinion that it is sufficiently proved that if this injury had not been done to the pursuer's child death would not have occurred.
In order to make out his case it was not necessary for the pursuer to prove that the dog was a vicious animal. Many dogs which are not in themselves vicious are notwithstanding dangerous. Sometimes a dog is dangerous through nervousness. A dog of this nature at times appears to be afraid that some injury is going to be done to itself, and in nervous fright turns round and gives a sudden snap. Such a dog is a dangerous animal although it may not be in the slightest degree vicious. I think there is no doubt that the dog in the present case was proved to have acted in a way that was dangerous to children, and I am satisfied on the evidence that the defender knew that children had on former occasions been snapped at by the dog. In these circumstances I cannot hold that the defender is not responsible for the act of the dog. I may also add that I consider the award of damages to be extremely moderate.
Lord Young —I am of the same opinion.
I need hardly say that I have great sympathy with lovers of dogs, and very much appreciate the feelings of the defender when he says that he would rather lose £5 than part with his dog. But at the same time I am of opinion that the dog was kept at the defender's risk for any such calamity as the evidence shows has occurred here, viz., that this dog bit a young child in such a manner as to cause its death. The child certainly died a short time after it was bitten, and I agree with the Sheriff that the death was attributable, in part at least, to the bite of the dog. I also agree that the amount of damages awarded is extremely moderate. I should not have thought it amiss if in a case like the present, where parents have been suddenly deprived of a young child of four years, a very much larger sum had been awarded as damages.
Lord Trayner concurred.
Lord Moncreiff was absent.
The Court pronounced this interlocutor—
“Dismiss the appeal: Find in fact and in law in terms of the findings in fact and in law in the interlocutor of the Sheriff of Lanark dated 21st April 1903: Of new decern against the defender for payment to the pursuer of the sum of £15 sterling as damages.”
Counsel for the Pursuer and Respondent— A. R. Brown. Agent— William Cowan, W.S.
Counsel for the Defender and Appellant— Salvesen, K.C.— Smith Clark. Agent— Henry Robertson, S.S.C: