DEAR SIR: I refer to advice given by Aisling Meehan to a reader query entitled ‘Who is responsible for an animal that died at the mart’.

This was in relation to an incident at one of our marts. In the article, Aisling stated that ‘the mart has a duty of care to you to look after animals while they are on the premises. Breach of that duty of care can result in a liability for losses that were reasonably foreseeable’. She summarised her advice by adding that ‘the mart has a responsibility to compensate the owner. The owner needs to talk to the mart manager and if they are not prepared to take some responsibility, he needs to take either legal proceedings or make a complaint to the IPAV’.

Marts are very conscious of their duty of care and invest considerably to make their premises safe for people and animals. They also invest in staff training. Thousands of animals pass through marts without incident. Unfortunately, in a very small number of cases, animals do get injured. In my experience, this is rarely due to a ‘failing in the duty of care’ on behalf of the mart.

Thousands of animals pass through marts without incident. Unfortunately, in a very small number of cases, animals do get injured

More often than not, it is because an animal displays a ‘wild streak’ and jumps or crashes against a gate or railing. Therefore, the question of whether or not a mart has failed in its ‘duty of care’ is not a black and white issue. Owners should be aware that the legal situation is that if an injured party is to successfully claim against the mart, they must prove that on the balance of probabilities, the mart acted negligently. I think, in the public interest, Aisling should clarify that the issue of whether or not a mart has breached its duty of care is not a simple one.

As mart operators, we care about our customers and business and we will always try and do the right thing. However, marts are not money making machines and with an average profit of only €2/3 per animal, are not in a position to pay out big compensation. On the basis of the advice given, owners may think that marts are automatically responsible and may run off to the nearest solicitor to sue the mart. I assure them that the only people who will benefit in this situation will be Aisling’s esteemed profession.