LIABILITIES 75 



trial court that if the defendant pretended to no 

 skill as a farrier, or was not known as such, but as 

 a matter of friendship, or otherwise, recommended 

 the making of the puncture in question, and it was 

 assented to by plaintiff, and made accordingly, 

 defendant was not liable, though the horse died 

 in consequence thereof. But on appeal, the 

 supreme court found this instruction erroneous, 

 and held that the defendant was a mandatory, and 

 was responsible as such for gross ignorance or 

 gross negligence; also that the diligence required 

 is proportional to the value of the property bailed, 

 or to the delicacy of the operation to be per- 

 formed.^^ 



The foregoing cases should make incompetent 

 persons more cautions in assuming such responsi- 

 bilities. It is unfortunately true, however, that 

 it is just such persons who are ignorant even of 

 the risks which they assume. 



49. Ordinary Liability. ''A veterinary sur- 

 geon, in the absence of a special contract, engages 

 to use such a reasonable skill, diligence, and atten- 

 tion as may be ordinarily expected of persons in 

 that profession. He does not undertake to use 

 the highest degree of skill, nor an extraordinaiy 

 amount of diligence. " ^^ He must follow usual 

 methods.^^ He would not be held liable for fail- 

 ure, unless it were due to default in duty.^^ The 



12 Conner v. Winton, 8 Ind. is Patten v. Wiggin, 51 Me. 

 315. 65 Am. St. Dee. 761. 594; O'Hara v. Wells, 14 Neb. 



13 Barney v. Pinkham, 29 403, 15 N. W. 722; Bronson v. 

 Xeb. 350, 45 X. W. 694, 26 Am. Hoffman, 7 Hun. 674; Boldt v. 

 St. E. 389. Murray, 2 N. Y. 232; Craig v, 



1* Patten v. Wiggin, 51 Me. Chambers, 17 Ohio 253; Wil- 

 594, 81 Am. Dec. 593; Carpen- liams v. Poppleton, 3 Ore. 139. 

 ter V. Blake, 60 Barb. 488. 



