FARMER CLAIMS DAMAGES

Southland Times, Issue 23795, 18 April 1939, Page 8

FARMER CLAIMS DAMAGES

USE OF SHEEP DIP ALLEGED INJURIES TO FLOCK (United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, April 17. Before Mr Justice Northcroft and a special jury a claim was brought today by Alan Grant, of Waimate sheep farmer, for £lB2O in special and general damages against Cooper, Mac Dougall and Robertson Ltd., of Chester, sheep-dip ; T ) an " ta ? tu f I r j j ® wirlS alleged injuries to his flock following the use of defendants’ dip. The f cause for action, according to Mr W. J. Sim, for plaintiff, was that Grant dippea his stud sheep in a dip manufactured by defendants according to the makers directions and some of his sheep we e Before coming to New Zealand in 1913 said Mr Sim, the plaintiff had three times won the premier awaiu for sheep breeders in Scotland and ha in South Canterbury budt up a famous stud. The dip, of which Grant purchased two five-gallon drums, was advertised as being especially suited for dipping sheep for show a it was claimed to give bloom, to the fle, The S dipping was done in perfect weather and Grant followed the manufacturers’ directions, added Mr Sim. The sequel was catastrophic, 37 sheep dying, including 16 stud rams, and 156 were affected. The first to be dipped was a Romney stud ram, for which Mr Grant had paid 100 guineas, and this was dead by 7 a.m. next day. . ficant fact was that it was the firs animals dipped that died these being unfortunately valuable stud rams Am mals subsequently dipped suffered, but survived. Expert evidence would be called to show that the sheep died from absorption through the skin of pheno and tar acids contained in the dip. Evidence would be called also that the first sheep put into the dip absorbed some of the poisons. STATEMENT OF DEFENCE In the statement of defence filed by the company, it was denied that the plaintiff’s rams did in fact sufiei injury by the absorption of poison- from the dipping wash through the skm or that they could suffer an injury oi that nature and from that cause if the concentrate dip had been diluted ana 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 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 suffered 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 maker’s 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 the dangers of which the 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 only a safeguard against the consequences of erroneous 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 the plaintiff when the Court adjourned. 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 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 hearing is an indication of the widespread nature of the inquiries necessary in the preparation of the evidence.