Study manual

183 
[7] Dean V. Keate. Nisi Prius. 1811. 3 Campbell 4. 
And in matters requiring the skill of an Expert it is 
tortious Negligence not to exercise that full degree of 
skill. 
THIS was an action for the improper treatment of a horse, let to 
hire by the plaintiff to the defendant. 
The defendant jobbed a pair of coach horses of the plaintiff. 
One of them being slightly indisposed, the defendant wrote a 
prescription for him. This medicine was not of itself 
calculated to do any injury; but after the horse had swallowed 
it, the defendant put him into harness, gave him strong 
exercise, and kept him exposed to the inclemency of the weather. 
In consequence of this treatment the animal was seized with an 
inflammation in the intestines. The defendant then, without 
consulting a veterinary surgeon, very imprudently prescribed a 
stimulating dose of opium and ginger. The horse, soon after 
taking it, died in great agony. Medical advice was called in 
when it was too late. 
Park, for defendant, contended that the action could not be 
maintained; as the defendant had, at most, been guilty of only 
an error of judgment, and had treated the plaintiff's horse 

---

184 
exactly as he would have treated his own. 
LORD ELLENBOROUGH. The question is, whether the defendant has 
been guilty of gross negligence with respect to the horse. Had 
he called in a farrier, he would not have been answerable for 
the medicines the latter might have administered. But when he 
himself prescribes, he assumes a new degree of responsibility.
And, prescribing so improperly, I think he did not exercise that 
degree of care which might be expected from a prudent man 
towards his own horse. 
Verdict for plaintiff. 
[EDITOR'S NOTE. Similarly any one who attempts to treat a sick 
person, (otherwise than on sudden emergency), will be liable for 
any lack of such skill as an ordinary qualified medical 
practitioner possesses; Jones v. Fay (4 F. & 525). If a local 
Board alter a sewer beneath some one's house, without an 
architect's help, they must do it, not merely to the best of 
their judgment, but as an architect would do it, to keep the 
house supported; (Jones v. Bird, 5 B. & Ald. 837). 
The liability is wholly independent of Contract; thus a surgeon 
who, spontaneously and gratuitously, attends to a man who has 
fallen down senseless in the street, is bound to exercise his 
full professional skill; L.R. [1918] A.C. at p. 689. Yet there 
is no Contract; for neither consideration nor concurrent consent 
is present.] 

---