NEGLIGENCE CHARGE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 8 March 1930, Page 5

NEGLIGENCE CHARGE.

AGAINST VETERINARIAN. DAMAGES FOR PLAINTIFF. fter a long hearing ,in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Ostler, tho civil action in which Edward Carleton Holmes claimed £l5O damages from Stanley Fletcher, for alleged negligence, concluded this morning when His Honoured delivered judgment in favour of plaintiff, giving damages amounting to £93 which included £5 general damages.

Mr 11. R. Biss appeared for plaintiff and Mr R. R. Burridge for defendant. Giving evidence yesterday for the defence, A. M. Brodie, veterinarian, said that from what he had heard in evidence ho could not attribute responsibility to Mr Fletcher for the deaths of the cows in question. He thought that defendant’s use of a piece of wire as a special instrument was a brainwave. The wire was capable of serving a useful purpose and, carefully used, eould do no harm. At times, in his own experience, witness had met with some mortality amongst cows that had been speyod, but over the thousands on wliieh lie had operated the losses had. been negligible. lie did not believe in boiling instruments.

T. H. Hankin, Government Veterinarian in Masterton, said he would not say it was careless or reckless to use a burred wire as it had been used by Mr Fletelier. An ordinary probe was a dangerous instrument if used without proper skill ttnd this was a kind of probe. To - His Honour: It all depended on the skill with which it was used.

To Mr Burridge: Witness did not think from what lie had heard in evidence that neglect or lack of skill could be attributed to Mr Fletcher.

After reviewing the evidence. His Honour said that it had been clearly proved that defendant had not come up to the standard of skill and care required. Firstly concerning the disinfectants, secondly on the time defendant took to do the operations. In evidence it had been shown that the average speed was 80 per day, but he had not done anything like that, and it seemed to His Honour that the longer one took in the operation, the greater the danger of infection. Thirdly in regard to the precautions taken in cleaning the instruments and" hands, in His Honour’s opinion, defendant should have realised the danger of infection in using the same soap as his assistant, and in allowing his assistant to handle his instruments and wash his hands in the same bucket. The fourth ground upon which negligence had been proved was that ho had not boiled his instruments on tho first day. This is laid down in text books as necessary and His Honour observed that those who would not obey the rulings in the books they should not bo surprised if the Court found them guilty of negligence. In His Honour’s opim ion defendant had fallen below the standard of skill in this respect.

In assessing damages His Honour considered that defendant was not responsible in the case of one cow included in tho claim. Ho held that it had been proved that 8 of tho cows had died through defendant’s negligence. The case, said His Honour, was one which had to be decided on the balance of probability and in his opinion defendant had fallen below the standard in antiseptic precautions.