112 RESPONSIBILITY OF VETERINARY SURGEONS. 



lias the onus of proving that injury received while in his 

 hands was not due to his fault, {a) In regard to veterinary 

 treatment for disease, the same rules apply which govern 

 the treatment of persons by a medical man, A veterinary 

 surgeon is bound to bring reasonable skill and fitness to the 

 subject under treatment, and he must exercise it with due 

 and proper care. If he be deficient in fitness, or having the 

 requisite skill fail to exercise it properly and carefully, he is 

 liable for any damage which may ensue. (6) And if he is 

 employed professionally and undertakes a case, that is 

 sufficient to render him liable for negligent treatment ; (c) 

 accordingly, in a case of negligent treatment, it was not found 

 necessary to aver by whom the medical man was employed, 

 nor by whom he was to be paid.(cZ) A surgeon, moreover, 

 is bound to exercise the same degree of care and skill by 

 whomsoever he may be called in. (e) 



In regard to the granting of veterinary certificates of sound- 

 ness, the rule appears to be that if a veterinary surgeon give 

 a warranty wrongfully, to render him liable, the case against 

 him must come up to this, that he acted as no intelligent 

 and properly educated veterinary surgeon would have done 

 when he examined the horse ; in fact, that he did not 

 exercise a reasonable amount of skill and intelligence. (/) 

 His liability appears to be limited to the party by whom he 

 is employed. Thus, if a buyer stipulates that a veterinary 

 surgeon's certificate of soundness is to be given with a horse 

 he is to purchase, and the seller provides one, which the 

 buyer can show was negligently given, he has no remedy 

 against the veterinary surgeon ((/) unless he can prove that 



(a) Bell's Pr. 154 ; Beven on Negligence, 820, ct seq. 

 (6) Collms V. Rodway, 1845 ; Oliphant, 229. 



(c) Gladivell v. StcrjrjaU, 1830, 8 Scott's C.P. 60. 



(d) Pippin V. Sheppard, 1822, 11 Price, 400. 



(e) Tindal, C.J., in Gladwdl, cit. 



(/) Mann v. Stephens, 1881, before Montague, Q.C., Penzance, 54 Veterinar- 

 ian, 655. 



{g) Walker v. Barling, 1884, N.P.C. Derby before Justice Denman, 57 

 Veterinarian, 202 ; Robertson v. Fleming, 1861, 4 Macq. 167. 



