Is it negligent to allow a domestic animal to be at large?

As Judson J. stated in Fleming v. Atkinson at p. 538: “ . . . there can be no difficulty in the application of the ordinary rules of negligence to the facts in this type of case and the matter should be left to the tribunal of fact to determine, with due regard to all the circumstances, including the nature of the highway and the amount and nature of the traffic that might reasonably be expected to be upon it, whether or not it would be negligent to allow a domestic animal to be at large.”

The road in the present case was a paved provincial highway. There is evidence that at the time the traffic was relatively heavy. That was reasonably to be expected. The highway was a well travelled one. The daughter was not alongside of the calf. She was about 20 feet behind it while, according to the plaintiff, “chasing” it home. The daughter similarly recalls, “I was chasing the calf and the calf ran across the road.” By “chasing” the calf the daughter would have little, if any, control over its movements, particularly as to the direction in which the calf was moving. That the calf would suddenly change its course in such circumstances should have been anticipated. Certainly there was a clear danger that the calf was liable at any time to move quickly onto the highway in front of an oncoming vehicle. As Ruttan J. stated in Weld v. McMyn, supra, “that is a danger to be apprehended from any animal, whether wild or tame”.