PERERA v. CHINNIAH.

PERERA v. CHINNIAH.

C. R., Colombo, 22,779.

Professional opinions-Advice of veterinary surgeon-Exercise of reasonable professional skill-Purchase of unsound horse-Liability of veterinary surgeon.

    A professional adviser does not guarantee the soundness of his advice. His duty is to bring to the exercise of his profession only a reasonable degree of care and skill, but not the highest degree of skill.

    If his honesty and good faith are admitted, a properly qualified veterinary surgeon would not be liable for the consequence of an opinion given after careful diagnosis.

    Gross ignorance or crass negligence alone would justify an action for damages against him.

    THE plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the sum of Rs. 300 as damages, alleging that by the negligence and incompetence of the defendant, who was a veterinary surgeon, in giving his opinion for reward, the plaintiff was induced to purchase an unsound horse for Rs. 600 (with its harness). The defendant denied that at the time he gave his opinion the horse was unsound, and he pleaded that his opinion was given honestly, faithfully and after due exercise of reasonable skill.

    The Commissioner (Mr. A. de A. Seneviratna) found that defendant's opinion, though honestly delivered, did not rest on a due exercise of reasonable professional skill.

    " His failing to notice lameness at any time, his omission to refer in his certificate to the defects which he observed in the horse at the time he examined it, his imputing the peculiarity of its gait first to the hardness of the skin at the fetlocks and afterwards to bad training, force me to the conclusion that his opinion, honest as it was, is not founded upon a due exercise of reasonable professional skill... Mr. Sturgess (who examined the horse) says that there was no difficulty in seeing that the horse was suffering from osteoporosis, and that the splint under the knee of the near foreleg was such as to render him lame I find that at the time the defendant examined the horse it was not sound by reason of weakness in the spine, a splint in the foreleg, enlargement of the right side of the lower jaw bone, and other defects. I find that the horse is not worth more than Rs. 250 owing to its unsoundness, and I assess the plaintiff's damages at Rs. 250. I give him judgment for that amount with costs."

    The defendant appealed.

    The case came on for argument before Wendt and Middleton, J.J., on 23rd May, 1904.

    Domhorst, K. C. (with Elliott), for appellant.-Lord Campbell said " When I had the honour of practising at the Bar of England, though I was tolerably cautious in giving opinions, I have no doubt I have repeatedly given erroneous opinions, and I think it was Mr. Justice Heath who said that it was a very difficult thing for a gentleman at the Bar to be called upon to give his opinion, because it was calling upon him to conjecture what twelve other persons would say upon some point that had never before been determined." Purves v. Landell, 12 Cl. & Fin. 102. A professional man does not guarantee that his opinion is right. That would make him an insurer. Here Mr. Sturgess, the adverse expert, says it is very difficult to give an opinion on such a question. The horse was not bought because of the opinion given, but of the exercise of the plaintiff's own choice. He was not bound to. act on the opinion given. That opinion was not given ignorantly. Every professional man is presumed to be competent to advise, but the person who seeks it may act on it or not, as he likes. Plaintiff says that the defendant is liable because of the unsoundness of the horse. If osteoporosis made the horse unsound, it may have been a development after the defendant had examined the horse. Doctors disagree, and who can be sure whether defendant or Mr. Sturgess is right? Defendant used his best skill, and no negligence is proved. According to Vand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document