In what circumstances can a plaintiff recover damages for injuries sustained by a bull?

In Richardson v. Dorn the plaintiff did not succeed. There a bull escaped, owing to a defective fence, from its pasture onto a highway and there followed the plaintiff’s wagon to which a cow was tied and, becoming entangled with the rope between the cow and the wagon, upset the wagon and injured the plaintiff. The principal ground upon which the Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s action was that the plaintiff did not treat the animal as her own and her husband was there to control it. However, the Judge went on to state that even if the plaintiff had established some basis of liability on the part of the defendant the plaintiff could not recover. He says at p. 150 of the report: “In the present case, therefore, I have to determine whether this accident is one which might reasonably have been anticipated as a result of permitting the animal to be at large and after careful consideration I have reached the conclusion that the accident is not one which might reasonably have been anticipated and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover. It is quite true that the defendant should have anticipated that after the bull escaped it would likely molest any cows but that in so doing it would upset the plaintiff’s wagon is, having regard to the various authorities which I have cited, too remote.”

In the instant case, however, it cannot be seriously argued that what the defendant’s bull did was not what one might reasonably have anticipated as a result of permitting it to be at large. As stated in Richardson v. Dorn, “the defendant should have anticipated that after the bull escaped it would likely molest any cows”. That was an ordinary consequence as a result of the bull running at large. Further, as stated in Cox v. Burbidge, supra, “whether or not the escape of the animal is due to [the defendant’s] negligence, is altogether immaterial.”