COLLINS V. ROD WAY. 
105 
perly, no doubt the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for any mis- 
chief that may have resulted from such unskilfulness ; but he is 
liable only to the extent to which mischief has been produced. 
“ Gentlemen, the rule I take to be this — that a person employed 
for any purpose must bring to the subject matter a reasonable skill 
and fitness, and he must exercise that reasonable skill and fitness 
with due and proper care. If he be deficient in the requisite 
skilfulness, and in consequence of that the operation is performed 
in a bad and bungling manner, or if, having the requisite skilful- 
ness, he fails to bring it to act, he is liable for any mischief that 
results from that ; but I need hardly tell you that an operation of 
this sort cannot be considered in the light of an insurance. If you 
apply to a surgeon or a medical man to cure you of any disorder, 
he is liable if there is any want of skill or proper care ; and I 
observed, that one of you, gentlemen, asked whether pricking a 
horse was a frequent accident. I think the answer to that imme- 
diate question was, that it was not, at all events, very unfrequent ; 
still that it may happen without any great degree of unskilfulness 
attaching to it. The operation must resemble that of shaving. 
If a man undertakes to shave another, he would not be responsible 
for every abrasion of the skin that the barber might make : it re- 
quires a degree of skilfulness and care, and it might be hardly 
possible to operate upon a certain person without something of 
that sort taking place ; and although an accident may happen, 
such as in this case, it may be that the foot of a horse was in such 
a state that it would be difficult to perform the operation of shoe- 
ing. Whenever that is the case, you would naturally expect 
some information given that there were those defects and difficul- 
ties, so that the farrier might be made acquainted of the risk he 
was exposing himself to. You will, therefore, have to judge 
whether you think there was any want of skill in the operation of 
shoeing these horses. I own it appears to me that I think it is 
impossible to doubt as to the fact that there was an actual pricking. 
“ With respect to the man’s skill, he may have done it on this 
occasion, they coming upon him at night to insist upon the job 
being done at an irregular hour, he may have done it badly — that 
was partly suggested at one time. Gentlemen, I must say it ap- 
pears to me, as a question of law, that that is no excuse. If you 
go to any place, and call in a surgeon or a farrier, or any person 
to perform any operation — if the time is inconvenient, and if the 
light be not sufficient, and if the occasion be not suitable — he is 
bound to say, ‘ I will not do it.’ If he does it, unless, indeed, he 
distinctly and explicitly says, ‘ I do it at your urgent request, but 
I will not be responsible for the consequences.’ Nothing of that 
sort appears to have come from him. On the contrary, though 
