FARMER'S CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 90, 18 April 1939, Page 19

FARMER'S CLAIM

INJURIES TO SHEEP

COMPANY'S DEFENCE

(By Telegr«apli—Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH, April 17

The hearing was continued before Mr. Justice Northcroft and a special jury of a claim brought by. Alan Grant, Waimate. sheep farmer, for £1820 in special and general damages against Cooper, Macdougall, and Robertson, Limited, Manchester, sheep dip manufacturers, for alleged injuries to his flock following the use of the defendants' dip.

The action is likely to be one of the most protracted heard by the Court for some time, His Honour told members of the jury that their services would be required till well into next week, if not longer. The action was legun more than four years ago, and the lapse of time before it has come to hearing is an indication of the widespread nature of the inquiries necessary in the preparation of evidence.

In the statement of defence filed by the company it was denied that plaintiff's rams did in fact, suffer injury.by the absorption of poison from the dipping wash through the skin or that they could suffer injury of that nature and from that cause if the concentrate dip had been diluted and mixed and the rafns dipped in accordance with the directions on the labels and with the reasonable and proper dipping practices of ordinarily prudent sheep farmers. To dip rams in high condition or when the weather was unsuitable was contrary to the reasonable and proper practice of prudent sheep farmers and negligent, as involving risks of injury through the dipping operation, but not from the constituents or strength of the dipping wash.

The company claimed also that it was not responsible in law for injuries sustained by the plaintiff's rams because of the natural effects of the dipping operation but independently of the composition, strength, or quality of the concentrate dip, or injuries sustained while in a high, unsuitable condition of health or in unsuitable weather, erroneous or inefficient mixing of the dipping wash, or disregard of the makers' directions or any default contrary to the usual and approved practices of prudent sheep farmers.

The defendants had given to the plaintiff adequate warning of all the dangers of which the defendants knew or ought to have known that were likely to arise from the proper and careful use of the concentrate dip according to the general and proper practice of sheep farmers. The precaution of putting through the dipping bath ordinary flock sheep first was only a safeguard against the consequences of erroneous or inefficient mixing of the dipping wash, and the company was not responsible for the consequences, and if the plaintiff after erroneously or inefficiently mixing the wash suffered loss caused by his failure to put through flock sheep first, the defendants were not liable.

Evidence was being given by the plaintiff when the Court adjourned.