Tom brought up some ethical considerations in the Keratoma Recovery thread, the gist of which is the farriers liability if work is done against his better judgement, even if specifically demanded by the client. The example being the client asking for the horse to be unshod, against the farrier's advice that it possibly could not cope. I'm sure this situation happens to most of us regularly, especially something as seemingly innocuous as removing shoes. But then where does its stop? People demand C/W here all the time, against my advise that they are inappropriate for current ground conditions etc. What if our opinion is that the horse would do better with some orthotics, bit owner isn't willing to pay? I'd bet a lot of us would lose clientele if we dug our toes in about what we thought vthe horse truly needed.
Tis a gray line for sure. I think that mediating with the client for a compromise if there belief is different to yours is a start. You cant advise from the unemployment que.
The most important word in the farrier's vocabulary is, IMO, "No". It is also one of the hardest to say. Fortunately, as independent business men and women, we always have the option to walk away. Don't know if it was Davey Crockett or Daniel Boone or someone else entirely who said "Be sure you're right, then go ahead". I think its good advice and worth remembering. In the case under review, were it my client, once the feet had been trimmed for shoes, then shoes would have been applied. I would have explained why the shoes needed to go back on and if the owner said s/he wasn't going to pay me for the shoes, I would have said 'Fine, but you still owe me for the trim.' Once the check had cleared the bank I would have informed the owner, by mail, the s/he was no longer in my custom so they should start their new farrier search immediately. And a copy of that letter would go in the client's folder in my office.
Rick...you would put the shoes on anyway even if they said "Don't nail the shoes on my horse"? I am understanding you right?
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the answer. But liability for what and a law suit on what grounds? That said, not putting the shoes on and then having the horse go lame because he was trimmed for shoes, not to remain barefoot, IMO, might because it might be construed as negligence. And, I would take that chance rather than risk the consequences of harm/damage to the horse because I followed the [dumb ass] owner's directive.
I'm not a lawyer either, it just seems awful brazen to go against the expressed wishes of the owners. I guess I need a bigger set of....well more guts or something.
Are you serious? Even in Ireland where we have strict gun laws you would quite likely be escorted off the property at the end of a double barrel with that attitude! Out here in Saudi ya'd probably be looking at satellite imaging for a recently dug body sized hole
If push really comes to shove, call the local animal control authority. Make sure you're the first to call. Most differences in opinion as to what the horse needs haven't been that big a deal in my business. Usually a warning from me that they shouldn't ride with out shoes or they may do better with a type of pad or such, but I haven't had a real case where the horse would be in peril. I have gotten calls a few days after I've pulled and trimmed, to come shoe the horse again, as they found I was right.
You'd leave a horse you just trimmed for shoes, barefoot? That's an invitation to a hanging and it won't be the owner's neck getting stretched.
The owner's wishes and expectations should be discussed before the old shoes are pulled, just so everyone is in agreement from the get-go..
Brazen would have been to threaten to swear out a felony animal cruelty warrant with an animal control officer and prosecute the warrant. (The warrant gives the officer probable cause to enter the property against the owner's will.) Considering that you have pictures of the original surgery (which I would also tell the owner about) and considering most animal control officers are rather overzealous and always looking for a chance to exercise their "power." I would tell the owner point blank that is how far I am willing to go and offer to send them post cards while they were in jail informing them of how their horse was doing. And, yes I have actually called animal control to prosecute one of my accounts in a similar situation. They took the horse.
Indeed. However, when/if that doesn't happen and as in this instance, the farrier expects he is putting shoes back on so he trims accordingly, to then leave the horse barefoot because, after the fact, the owner makes his/her 'wants' known, could/would lead to a charge of negligence on the farrier's part. Even if the charge is not sustained, who amongst us wants the headache, bother and cost involved in defending against the charge? And, for the record, I have personal experience with this type of situation.
Shane, In this instance, we can take a lesson from the construction industry. There is a process in construction called a change order, it basically means that the person paying the bills decided, in the middle of the job, that they wanted to change the outcome in some way. When this happens, the original directives are documented along with the new set of directives. Then, both parties sign that they will abide by the new directives and any changes in cost are documented as well. By documenting everything and having the owner sign off that they are the ones who made that decision, risk and liability are transferred to the owner. There is a saying that "He who has the gold makes the rules." However, that doesn't mean that rule changes have to be accepted without question. Part of your job as the hired professional and subject matter expert is to advise "He who has the gold" on the possible effects of their decisions then, do whatever you can to CYA. One thing that may help, in the CYA department, is to give statement of work and "treatment" plan to the owner with their receipt and keep a signed copy for yourself. It may not save you from going to court, remember this is America where anyone can sue for anything at anytime, but it will help you present your case. Especially, if you note anything that you don't agree with on the statement of work. I know it is a lot of extra paperwork, and you didn't go into business to do paperwork. That's one of the reasons a lot more people don't start their own businesses becuase, they would rather do the work they enjoy and let someone else worry about the paperwork involved. Hope that helps David This advice is probably the best way the situation could have been handled, to protect the horse and the farrier.
Not I, Rick. That's actually happened a couple of times on a misunderstanding and I shod the horses. On a deal like that I'll make the client feel better by adding something to the shoeing at no charge like eased breakover or heel expansion, maybe even a thrush treatment!! Everyone walks off happy.
I believe in these types of situations, CYA is in order. If it is so against what you as the hoof care professional suggest, then have the owner sign a statement to the fact they take personal resonsibility in having the horse done against your better judgement. IMO I got to attend a court room a year and a half ago on a case. The judge asked me if I was a Certified Farrier, which I replied yes and was able to produce my legal papers as such. After that, my word was taken and was accepted as the subject matter expert. One advantage of the system here.
Maybe if you had explained to the owner that they were stopping you from finishing the job instead of agreeing with them that the job was finished. 'nuther words instead of playing along, force them to fire you right then and there on the spot and pay you for the work up to the point where they told you to stop. IMO that is the only way you get off the hook BECAUSE you did not willingly agree to leave the horse in a condition that was (in your expert professional opinion) probably harmful. By forcing them to fire you before the job is completed, it puts their finger on the trigger and makes them totally responsible for the willful act. They can't come back on you when they fired you half way into the job. They can't say you "agreed" to do it their way, because they fired you over the disagreement.
So an electrical contractor goes to court with a written agreement to wire a house against the building codes. The agreement acknowledges that the contractor is aware that the work is not to be done to code and the owner acknowledges that fact as well. How does this release document protect the contractor from a willful code violation? More like proof of a conspiracy between the customer and contractor to violate the code. Result, both are fined by the court and the contractor looses his license!!!
