Exam A
by Attorney Krysia Nelson
Test your knowledge of equine law. Attorney Krysia Nelson presents a bona fide case study of equestrian litigation. A SICKLY COLT
trainer is contacted by a close friend who asks her to “take on” a young Warmblood stallion prospect.
The colt is four years old and was bred by a friend of the friend, and the trainer’s close friend believes the colt is a true “diamond in the rough.” The trainer’s close friend has convinced the owner that the colt should go with the trainer to Florida for training, and possibly some showing, for the winter. Although she hasn’t seen the colt, the trainer trusts her friend and is always happy to take on another paying client. The colt is shipped to Florida. It comes off the trailer
shaggy, underweight, barefoot and unmuscled. It has obviously never had its mane pulled in its life. As the first order of business, the trainer sets her barn staff to cleaning up the colt. As it turns out, the colt is very sweet and easy to work with. Once the trainer starts working with the colt, it also turns out that he has been well started and is a very quick learner. Initially, the trainer is mildly concerned that the colt’s overall body condition is poor—but she worms the colt and puts him on a number of supplements in addition to increasing his feed. Although the colt is small in stature, he is “picture
perfect” in miniature. He has beautiful conformation and is a lovely mover. She takes him to a few shows and he does remarkably well. The plan had always been that, come spring, she would ship the colt home to his owner where he would have some time off. The owner was very clear that she could not afford to keep the colt in training year round. However, as the Florida winter season winds down and the trainer is getting ready to ship him home, she observes that his body condition has really not improved as much as she would have liked. When the vet comes to complete the health
certificate for the horse to be shipped, he comments that it might be a good idea for the owner to run some blood work on the colt when he gets home because “something is not right.” The trainer mentions this to the owner as she confirms the shipping schedule. She offers to have her own vet in Florida evaluate the colt more thoroughly, but the owner declines, citing cost concerns. The trainer considers paying for the testing, but decides that since the owner has not yet paid her for her services, that she is not willing to absorb more expense related to this colt in case the owner turns out to be a dead-beat. A week later, on a Sunday night in March, the trainer puts the colt on another trainer’s rig for his trip home to Pennsylvania.
64 January/February 2013
When the colt steps off the trailer in Pennsylvania on
Monday afternoon, he can barely walk. He is stumbling and lethargic and promptly lies down when put in his stall. The owner decides to let the colt “rest” overnight and see how he is in the morning. When the owner finds the colt in the morning, he is “flat out” in his stall and virtually non-responsive (but still alive). She calls her veterinarian who diagnoses the colt with severe dehydration. He starts the colt on IV fluids and draws blood to send to the lab. Once the colt is hydrated and able to stand, the owner ships him to the nearest veterinary clinic. The colt’s blood work comes back with terrible results.
His kidney function is poor and his sodium levels are through the roof, but otherwise there is little information on which to base a diagnosis. The clinic advises further testing to pinpoint the problem, but warns the owner that at this point the colt’s condition is guarded and the prognosis (without a definitive diagnosis) is poor because they do not know how to treat the colt without knowing what they are treating. The colt’s owner—who is not wealthy and does not have the colt insured—opts to have him put down. A post-mortem examination does not reveal a cause of death. Two months after the colt is euthanized and his
remains disposed of, the owner files suit against the trainer and the shipper. She sues for a significant sum which includes what is alleged to represent the value of the colt, his future income potential as a breeding stallion, pain and suffering (that the colt had to endure) and the owner’s emotional distress at seeing his condition and having to euthanize him. The law suit alleges that the trainer was negligent in not diagnosing the colt’s “problem” before putting him on a van for an 18 hour trip. The owner further concluded that because the colt was dehydrated when he was examined by the vet the morning after he arrived in Pennsylvania, the shipper must not have given the colt any water during the trip. On this theory, the lawsuit charges the shipper with negligence as well.
You be the Judge: • Was it negligent for the trainer to ship the colt from
Florida to Pennsylvania when both she and the vet had concerns about its condition?
• Is the fact that the colt was “severely” dehydrated on
Tuesday morning “proof” that the shipper did not give it water during the trip? If so, was the shipper negligent?
Bar
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108