(two-year old plaintiff visiting a retail store located on a farm was injured when a horse he was petting bit him, removing a large portion of his cheek; the defendant owner moved for summary judgment because there was no evidence defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of any vicious tendencies of the specific horse that bit the plaintiff; district court granted summary judgment; appellate court reversed holding that negligence can be proven against the owner of a domestic animal by proof of “natural propensities” of the species to “do mischief or be vicious” rather than the tendencies of a specific animal; if the species possesses the natural propensities to cause harm, then the owner must take precautions to prevent a foreseeable injury; a question of fact was generated in this case as to whether the defendant had notice that the horse belonged to a class of domestic animals possessing a natural propensity to bite). This case was affirmed on appeal.