THE TAURANGA BULL CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12555, 22 April 1904, Page 5

THE TAURANGA BULL CASE.

JUDGMENT OP COURT OF APPEAL.

MR. JUSTICE EDWARDS' DECISION

REVERSED.

[BT TEr/RCRArir.— ASSOCIATION'.]

Wet.linoto.v, Thursday.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of William Paterson (appellant) v. Alexander Allen Fleming (respondent) was given to-day. The case was an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Edwards in the case of Fleming v. Paterson and Seddon, a claim for £4000 for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through being gored by a bullock belonging to the defendant Paterson.

' The Court was unanimously of opinion that tho appeal from the decision of Mr, Justice Edwards,should be allowed. Members of the Court based their judgments, however, upon different grounds. The Chief Justice was of opinion that the evidence was not sufficient to establish negligence in the mode of landing cattle. Further, His Honor doubted whether Mr. Robert Seddon, who had charge of the cattle at the time, could be regarded as the servant or agent of the appellant so as to" give rise to liability on the part of appellant, assuming that there had been negligence iu landing. Mr. Justice Williams considered that the question of negligence was a doubtful one, but was not prepared to differ from the other members of the Court upon the point. His Honor was satisfied, however, that on the evidence before the. Court it could not be held that the relationship between appellant and Mr. Seddon had been such that the maxim respondent superior would apply, and that the responsibility for the negligence, if any, of Mr. Seddon should be thrown on the appellant. Mr. Justice Deuniston concurred in the view taken by Mr. Justice Williams. Mr. Justice Cooper and Mr. Justice Chapman were of opinion that the weight of evidence was in favour of the conclusion that there had been negligence, and that Mr. Seddon's position had been that of an unpaid agent for the appellant, for whose negligence appellant would be responsible. Their Honors considered, however, that the goring of a man by the bullock in question was not a consequence of the method of landing (although negligent) which could reasonably have been anticipated. Their Honors concurred, therefore, in the conclusion that the appellant was not responsible. The Court was unanimously of opinion that the appellant could not be held liable on the ground of trespass alone. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court reversed so far as appellant was concerned. The matter of costs was allowed to stand over for further consideration. HISTORY OF THE CASE.

[ The above case, which by this time will ; be well known to most of our readers as the " Tauranga bull case," has been before the Courts several times during the past two or three years. It came before the Supreme Court in Auckland in December last, in the form of a, claim by Dr. Fleming, of Tauranga, for £4000 (for damages alleged to have been sustained by being gored by a bullock) against William Paterson and Robert Seddon. The facts, as set out. were that Paterson sent nine head of cattle by steamer from Motiti Island to Tauranga, and defendant Seddon was his agent to receive them. The cattle were landed on November 20, 1901, by slinging them from the hold of the steamer into the water near the wharf opposite the Strand. One beast, it was claimed, through being so landed became wild and dangerous, broke into the plaintiffs garden, and there rushed him, causing him serious injuries. Dr. Fleming, in his evidence, stated that Mrs. Fleming came and told him there was a beast in the garden, and he went to put it out. As soon as the animal caught sight of him it put down its head and charged. He endeavoured to escape, but the beast tossed him, and lie remembered nothing more till he found himself lying at the foot of a tree. As a result of his injuries he had to be conveyed to a hospital. Upon his return to Tauranga he was still ill, and was unable to resume practice for fully 18 months. Up till the accident his books showed that his earnings were between £500 and £fcoo a year, the sum actually collected being about £450. His practice at the present time was practically nil. He was 63 years of age, and before the accident he had enjoyed excellent health. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the animal's attack on him was due to the uegligence of the defendants in lauding the cattle, but the evidence of J'aterson and Seddon was to the effect that cattle had been landed in a similar manner previously without any trouble, and that this was the first time that a beast had been known to go wild in such a way. Mr. Justice, Edwards, in the course of his judgment, given in January last, said the evidence satisfied him that at least several of the cattle were not in any sense under proper control, and they were a source of serious danger to the public. It was incumbent upon those responsible for their management to take every reasonable precaution to prevent the cattle from being a source of danger, but the reasonable and well recognised precaution of bringing quiet cattle to meet the cattle as they landed upon the shore was entirely neglected. Both defendants, in his opinion, were liable to the plaintiff upon the ground of negligence, therefore damages would be assessed and the,judgment entered against both defendants. His Honor awarded plaintiff the sum of £1250 damages, with costs according to the scale. On the application of defendants execution was stayed pending the appeal to the Full Court.