DEATH OF DOG

Kaikoura Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 25, 28 March 1938, Page 4

DEATH OF DOG

CLAIM BY FARMER. MAGISTRATE’S COM MEN T. Some advice to drovers in respect of the control of their dogs when cars are passing was given by .Air J. L. Stout, S.M., during the hearing of a civil action in the Palmerston North Magistrate’s Court. The plaintiff was John Thomas Hill, farmer, of Ashhurst, who claimed £25 from S. Levin, traveller, of Wellington, ajs damages for the loss of a dog which had been run over by the defendant’s Mr Stout asked the plaintiff what he had done to ensure the safety of his dog. The plaintiff, in reply, said that the dog had been standing alongside the running-board of his car, which was stationary on the side of the road. He had been waiting for Lovin to pass before turning around to proceed in the opposite direction, but the defendant passed within sixteen inches, running over the dog and killing it. The Magistrate: It is a wonder a lot more dogs are not killed on the highways the wav you farmers let them run about all over the place. Farmers don’t seem to take any precaution's at all, but expect the car driver to take all the precautions. I don’t say that that was so in this case, but it is a general experience. Mr Stout asked the plaintiff what his dog usually did when his car started off. The plaintiff: It jumps on the run-ning-board.

The Magistrate: Why didn’t you call him up there then? The plaintiff said he did not have time to do so as the defendant had driven by at 60 m.p.h., and although the defendant had had thirteen feet of the bitumen, he had passed within inches of the stationary car. The defendant’s evidence was that the dog had crossed the road in front of him and that his speed was only 35 m.p.h. Tn giving judgment for the defendant the Magistrate emphasised that the plaintiff had not taken the precaution lie should have done to protect his dog. He could not understand why Hill had left the animal standing on the road. However, he would not hold that the defendant had not been party to blame in not swerving to avoid the animal and so would not grant him costs in the action.