COMPENSATION 95 



74. Effect of Malpractice on Compensation. 



Negligence does not necessarily preclude the re- 

 covery of fees, perhaps reduced in amount.^® It 

 is a general rule, however, recognized by the com- 

 mon law, that where the practitioner has been 

 guilty of negligence and malpractice he cannot 

 recover for his services. ^^ It must be recognized 

 that there is a difference between simple negli- 

 gence and malpractice, though malpractice is a 

 result of negligence. It should be apparent to 

 any one, that a man who is constantly intoxicated 

 cannot render due care in such professional serv- 

 ice; but if one continues to employ such a practi- 

 tioner, knowing his habits, he is thereby estopped 

 from making that a ground for refusal to pay for 

 the service.^ ^ If there be negligence on the part of 

 the practitioner, there is also contributory negli- 

 gence on the part of the client. A man cannot 

 thus take an advantage of his own negligence. 



75. Who is Liable for Compensation. Ordi- 

 narily it is the owner of live stock who sends for 

 the veterinarian, and in such a case there would 

 be no question as to who must pay for the services. 

 Under the general rule of respondeat superior 

 the act of a subordinate is considered as the act 

 of the principal, and when a servant sends for the 

 veterinarian it will be considered as if the owner 

 himself had sent for him. It frequently happens 

 in accident cases especially, that some person 



43 Kas. 714, 23 Pae. 942; Max- i^Chitty's Blackstone, III, 



well V. Swigart, 48 Neb. 789, 67 122, note. 



N. W. 789. isMcKleroy v. Sewell, 73 



16 Whitesell v. Hill, 66 N. W. Ga. 657. 

 894. 



