Exam O
Test your knowledge of equine law. by Attorney Krysia Nelson
Test Your Knowledge of Equine Law Case #1:
n the advice of her daughter’s trainers, a mom purchased a pony for her daughter to
show. The trainers described the pony as “per- fect,” and the mom agreed to pay for a veterinary pre-purchase ex- amination. The trainers reported back to the mom that the pony had, in essence, passed the vet- ting with flying colors. The mom paid $175,000 for the pony, and her daughter began competing it. Some six months later, the daughter changed trainers and the new trainer told the mom there was “something wrong” with the pony. A veterinarian was called in to x-ray the pony’s feet and interpreted the films to show some “rotation” in the coffin joint, sug- gesting that the pony may have had a history of founder. The mom filed suit against the original trainers under a number of theories, including an allegation that they had induced her to pur- chase the pony by concealing from her negative information about its health. What does the mom need to establish to keep her case against the trainers from being dismissed?
a) That the rotation visible on the later x-rays
was there when she bought the pony. b) That the vet gave the trainers negative in-
formation that they did not share with her. c) That there was actually “something wrong” with the pony, such as that it exhibited signs of lameness that could be linked to the abnormal x-ray findings. d) All of the above.
More than five years after the mom filed her
lawsuit, the court dismissed the claims against the trainers. The court concluded the mom lacked any evidence that the trainers “were themselves informed” by the veterinarian of any
68 November/December 2018
health problems or alleged irregularity in the pre-purchase x-rays. Further, the court found that the x-rays taken eight months after the pony had been competing with the daughter did not prove the “rotation” existed at the time of the pre-purchase examina- tion. Unhelpful to the mom’s case was also the affidavit of the new trainer, who opined that he’d never seen the pony lame. Particularly unhelpful to the mom’s case was the daugh- ter’s deposition testimony that she had had success showing
the pony and stopped riding it not because it was lame, but because “as she got older, she needed a bigger horse.” The answer is (d).
Case #2:
examination of the pony for malpractice. Evi- dence from both sides suggests that the inter- pretation of the x-ray films is open to debate. Even if that is the case, the veterinarian may have committed malpractice by:
T a) Not sending the x-rays to a specialist for
review b) Letting the mom purchase the pony c) Not discussing the “debatable” findings with the mom.
d) All of the above. The court refused the veterinarian’s request
that the mom’s malpractice claim be dismissed before trial. The court held that a jury would have to decide whether it was malpractice for the vet- erinarian to not discuss and explain the x-ray find- ings with the mom directly. The answer is (c).
he mom in the case above also sued the vet- erinarian who performed the pre-purchase
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
