Vet alleged to have infected farmhand

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33654, 2 October 1974, Page 2

Vet alleged to have infected farmhand

(From Our Own Reporter) NELSON, October 1. A farmhand who alleges that he was squirted in the eye with anti-brucellosis vaccine during the inoculation of cattle in 1970 began a $75,000 general damages claim against two veterinary surgeons in the Nelson Supreme Court today.

He is alleging that the accidental squirt of vaccine brought on undulent fever, and that he is still suffering and will continue to suffer from some of the effects of the disease. The plaintiff in the action is Malcolm Noel Shirtcliff, of Tadmor, and the defendants, Peter Heywood Malone (first defendant) and Anne Robin Haig, an employee of Malone. The plaintiff is also claiming an unspecified sum in special damages. These will include $13,000 as wages lost by the defendant from the time he contracted brucellosis. ACCIDENT Mr Shirtcliff is represented by Mr H. W. Riddoch and Mr T. M. Gresson (Timaru). The defendants are represented by Messrs G. L. McLeod (Wellington) and E. P. McNabb. The hearing is expected to go into next week. The claim was based on an accident on a farm at Tadmor during the vaccination of cattle on February 20, 1970, said Mr Gresson. After assisting with the inoculation of cattle on the plaintiff’s father’s farm, the plaintiff had gone to a neighbours’ farm to assist the veterinarian, Mrs Haig, in a similar operation there. While she was doing the inoculations, Mrs Haig had handled the gun in such a way that the brucellaabortive vaccine had been discharged into the eye of Mr Shirtcliff. SUFFERING The plaintiff had not then appreciated how dangerous the vaccine was, said Mr Gresson. Mrs Haig told him to wash his eye in a creek. The accident had dire consequences for Mr Shirtcliff. Three weeks later he had become ill, and his doctor had diagnosed that the plaintiff

had contracted brucellosis. He had been unable to work since, had suffered considerably, and the aches throughout his body still persisted. The brucellosis remained active for two years, said Mr Gresson. Mr Gresson alleged that the defendant (Mrs Haig), was negligent in that she handled the vaccine-gun negligently and that she had not advised the plaintiff to seek immediate medical attention. Mr Shirtcliff told the Court that, while he was attempting to close a gate, while the defendant, Mrs Haig, with the vaccine-gun in hand, had attempted to help him, and had squirted him in the eye wtih the vaccine, Mr Shirtcliff denied having handled the gun. DENIAL Mr McLeod said that Mrs Haig would tell a completely different story. , She would

say that the cattle were not inoculated in a race but in a pen, and that, while she was ear-tagging them, the plaintiff held the vaccinegun. Mr McLeod: Mrs Haig will say that while she was doing the tagging and while you were holding the gun you came to the rail and said, “I think I’ve got some vaccine in my eye.” If Mrs Haig says that would it be true? Mr Shirtcliff: No, she would be lying. Mr Shirtcliff was still being cross-examined when the court adjourned.