Exam OUTCOME OF THE CASE: A SICKLY COLT Ultimately, the owner of the colt dropped the lawsuit
shortly before trial. The fact that she had not authorized the veterinary clinic to continue attempting to diagnose the colt doomed her case. She had probably banked on the post- mortem revealing a cause of death, and when it did not, she was simply not in a position to prove a case of negligence against anyone. In the case against the trainer, proving negligence would
have required the owner to show what the trainer should have done differently that would have resulted in a different outcome. In other words, even if there was some argument that the trainer should not have put the colt on the van, without proof of what condition killed the colt, there was simply no proof that the trainer’s act of putting the horse on the van proximately caused the colt’s death. The case against the shipper had the same problem.
Without proof of what killed the colt, the fact that he was found dehydrated on Tuesday morning was simply not proof that the shipper had failed to offer him water, or should have done something differently, during the journey north. Had the post-mortem revealed a cause of death, or had the
owner authorized the veterinary clinic to complete additional testing until a diagnosis was made, the outcome of the case might have been quite different. In addition, the amount of damages claimed by the
owner was unsupportable. The colt’s market value, without a significant show or stud record, was debatable. Since the colt had never been bred, there was no basis in law for any claim for “lost future income.” Since horses are, by law, deemed to be personal property, there is no basis in law for any claim for compensation attributable to the horse’s pain and suffering. Although some courts have begun to recognize an owner’s claim for emotional distress in connection with a pet’s injury, the facts in this case did not support an award of damages on this theory. Why did the owner drop the case at the eleventh hour?
Probably because her lawyer realized the case had problems and that the trainer and the shipper intended to ask the court to impose sanctions against the owner for filing the case in the first place. By dropping the case, the owner and her lawyer avoided being on the hook for the trainer’s and shipper’s defense costs. Unfortunately, this was most likely a case where the lawyer
representing the owner did not know enough about animals, veterinary medicine and animal law. The owner went to the lawyer with a theory of liability (the fact that this horse died when it got home has to be someone’s fault!) that seemed to make sense, and without an understanding of how to calculate damages in an animal case, the lawyer asked for compensation for which there was no basis in the law. The closer he got to trial, the more he probably realized the problems with the case. Given what the trainer knew about the owner’s financial situation, the lawyer probably took the case on a contingency basis , and when he realized that the case was not worth what he’d initially thought, he jumped ship. Needless to say, the owner never paid the trainer’s bill.
The trainer did not have the owner sign a boarding or training agreement before she took the colt. However, it is not certain that such an agreement would have protected the trainer from this lawsuit. What would have been helpful to the trainer is if she had had some applicable insurance coverage that would have covered her defense costs.
About the author: Krysia Carmel Nelson is an attorney from Virginia who is a nationally-recognized expert in equine law. Attorney Nelson represents horse owners, trainers, riders, breeders, equestrian facilities, farms, clubs and associations
across all nationally and internationally recognized disciplines. As a lifelong equestrian, she currently rides and competes her Hanoverian Affirmed on Appeal in the amateur hunters. She can be reached at
eqlaw@aol.com.
66 January/February 2013
Bar
The Book LLC 2011
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