SHEEP-DIP CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1939, Page 5

SHEEP-DIP CASE

A LENGTHY HEADING [PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHRISTCHURCH, April 17. The hearing is proceeding before Mr. Justice Northcroft and a special jury, of the claim brought by Alan Grant, of Waimate, sheep farmer, for £lB2O in special and general damages against Cooper, MacDougall and Robertson, Ltd., of Manchester, sheep-dip manufacturers, for alleged injuries to his flock following the use of defendants’ dip. In the statement of defence, filed by the company, it was denied that the plaintiff’s rams did, in fact, suffer injury by the absorption of poison 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 rams 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 a high condition, or when the weather was unsuitable, was contrary to the reasonable and proper practice of prudent sheep farmers, and was 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 owing to the natural effects of dipping operations, 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 defendant had given to the plaintiff adequate warning of all dangers of which defendant 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 the only safeguard against the consequences of erroneaus or inefficient mixing of the dipping wash and the company was not responsible for the, consequences thereof; and if the plaintiff after erroneously or inefficiently. mixing the wash, suffered loss, caused by his failure to put through flock sheep first, the defendant, was not liable.

Evidence was being given by plaintiff when the court adjourned. This action is likely to be one of the most protracted heard by the Court for some time. His Honor told the members of the jury 7 that their services would be required until well into next week, if not longer. The action was begun more than four years ago, and the lapse of time before it has come to a hearing is an indication of the widespread nature or the inquiries necessary in the preparation of the evidence.