BIG DAMAGES SOUGHT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIX, Issue 117, 18 April 1939, Page 5

BIG DAMAGES SOUGHT

FARMER’S CLAIM. Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, April 17. Before Mr Justice Northcroft and a special jury a claim was brought today by Alan Grant, of Wniinate, a sheep-farmer, for £IB2O ill special and general' damages against Cooper, MaeIdougal and Robertson, Ltd., of Manchester, sheepdip manufacturers, for alleged injuries to his flock following the use of defendants’ dip. The cause of the action, according to Mr W. J. Sim (for plaintiff), was that Grant dipped his stud sheep in dip manufactured by defendants according to the makers’ directions, and some of his sheep were killed. Before coming to New Zealand, in 1918, said Mr Sim, plaintiff had three times won tho premier award for sheep breeders in Scotland, and had in South Canterbury built up a famous stud. The dip, of which Grant had purchased two five-gallon drums, was advertised as being especially suited for dipping sheep for show or sale, as it was claimed to give “bloom” to the fleeces. The dipping was done in perfect weather, and Grant had followed the manufacturers’ directions. The sequel was catastrophic, 87 sheep dying, including sixteen stud rams, and 150 were affected. The first to be clipped was a Romney stud ram for which Grant had paid 100 guineas, and tin's was dead by 7 a.in. the next day. A significant fact was that it was the first animals dipped that had died, these being, unfortunately, valuable stud rams. The animals subsequently dipped had suffered, but had survived. Expert evidence would be called to show that the sliep had died from absorption through the skin ol phenol and tar acids contained in the dip. Evidence would be called, also, that the first sheep put into the dip had absorbed some of tbe poisons. CO MBAN Y’ S DEEEN CE.

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 concent rate dip had been diluted and mixed and the rams dipped iff 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 injur-

ies sustained by 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 ap proved practices of prudent sheepfarmers.

Defendants had given to plaintiff adequate warning of all the dangers of which defendants knew or ought to have known that were likely to arise from the proper and careful use of the concentrate dip according to tho general ami proper practice of sheepfarmers. 'Plie precaution of putting through the dipping hath 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 d plaintiff after erroneously or inefficiently mixing the wash suffered loss caused by bis failure to put through (lock sheep first defendants were not liable.

Evidence was being given by plaintiff when the Court adjourned. The action is likely to be one ol (be most protracted beard 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. Tbe action was begun more than four years ago, and tbe lapse of time before it lias come to bearing is an indication of the widespread nature of tbe inquiries necessary in the preparation of evidence.