88 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



There is a well understood principle in the law 

 of negligence, that if the patient, or party com- 

 plaining, has failed to follow the directions given, 

 or by his own wilful or negligent act, causes, or 

 contributes to, the condition complained of, his 

 action is barred."*^ 



The cases of Morrison v. Altig, and Conner v. 

 Winton, above cited, both involve the subject of 

 bailment. (Chapter X.) Where a stock owner, 

 knowing that the man to whom he entrusts the 

 care of his animals is not competent, unless the 

 man thus employed, or thus assisting, be grossly 

 careless, when hami results the responsibility 

 must be placed upon the shoulders of the owner 

 thus making a choice involving the risk. This 

 subject is thus discussed by Mr. Justice Story in 

 his Commentary on ' ' Bailments " : ^^ 



**But even where the particular business re- 

 quires skill, if the bailee is known not to possess it, 

 or he does not exercise the particular art or em- 

 ployment to which it belongs, and he makes no 

 pretension to skill in it; then, if the bailor, with 

 full notice trusts him with the undertaking, the 

 bailee is bound only for a reasonable exercise of 

 the skill which he professes, or of the judgment 

 which he can employ; and if any loss ensue from 

 want of due skill, he is not chargeable. Thus (to 

 put a case borrowed from the Mohammedan law), 

 if a person will knowingly employ a common mat 

 maker to weave or embroider a fine carpet, he may 



48 Jones V. Angell, 85 Ind. Hitchcock v. Burgett, 38 Mich. 



.376; Lower v. Franks, 115 Ind. 501; Littlejohn v. Arbogast, 95 



334, 17 N. E. 630; Hibbard v. 111. App. 505. 



Thompson, 109 Mass. 286; 49 453. 



