Good stuff, Mark. Thanks. While we may not be subject to malpractice claims per se, how about being sued for negligence? I know it may behard to prove but defending oneself against such a charge can be costly both in time and resources. And while there may not be a codified standard of care for farriers, 'expert testimony' can and demonstrably has, swayed juries, especially since most often the jurors won't be horsemen/women. Regardless, we each choose what we feel is the correct path/action to take. I prefer to err on the side of caution.
Rick, negligence would be as difficult to prove as malpractice. To understand why, one need only review a legal definition of negligence. To wit, Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances. In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. Here again, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff and they must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt the practitioner has departed from the expected "standard of conduct". What is the expected "standard of conduct" and what established law comes into play? The AMVA has standards of conduct that govern veterinary practice. The best a plaintiff might accomplish would be to demonstrate a violation of law designed to punish those guilty of animal cruelty. They cannot lay claim to negligence that caused to harm to the plaintiffs person. The harm was done to a horse which is viewed by the courts as property. The best analogy I can offer would be if you were to somehow damage a persons unoccupied automobile. Any claim would be viewed as property damage only. As to expert testimony and swaying jurors, I touched on this in my original comments. The cost of litigation, including expert testimony, will almost always exceed the fair market value of the property (the horse). Even if the plaintiff wins the case, they'll almost certainly lose money. As to a jury trial, it just isn't likely to ever happen. As I said earlier, these cases invariably end up in a claims court because at issue is nothing more than a piece of property. In short, horses don't have rights and the horse is the only thing that suffered any injury. The worst the owner suffered was a financial loss. Cheers, Mark
I believe a tort has a lower standard of proof (a preponderance of evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt) than a criminal case. Remember OJ Simpson?
Thanks, Mark. You are way more ambitious than I am. I believe you deserve atleast an A+ on your term papers. The next time we agree on a matter up for debate, may I enlist you, as my surrogate/second, in the fight? Although, I haven't seen Tom's concession speech as of yet. By the way Tom, I receive 1099s not W2s, every February, from the 2 Vet clinics, I currently service and I am a considered contract employee with workman's comp coverage and other insurance coverage.
I think Mark has done a good job explaining the burden of proof that a plaintiff would be dealing with in order for them to prevail in a court of law. But in so doing he has also identified HOW such litigation could be pursued by a plaintiff with deep pockets. What he did not cover is the topic of "intent" and whether or not that would play a role in an animal cruelty case. The way I see it, technically if you intentionally do something that you believe is harmful to the horse, regardless of who ordered you to do it, you've just committed a crime involving property damage and animal cruelty. Whether or not you can be successfully prosecuted is not something I've argued. My point is that your intent was deliberate and in your own mind you believed it would do harm. Whether or not it results in harm and whether or not somebody can prove your intent - who cares? You are the one that has to live with your decisions. I believe that Mark also established that a veterinarian has no legal authority over how a farrier shoes a horse unless you are acting as their agent/employee. Even then, their authority would only extend to their ability to fire you for refusing to follow their orders. Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a minute. Suppose a vet tells your client that you shod the horse wrong. And suppose you lose that client and as a result you lose significant income. If the client admits under oath that the vet disparaged your work and that resulted in you being fired, do you have a case for slander? As a defense against slander, wouldn't the vet have to prove that you actually shod the horse wrong?
All I can say is, Wow Tom. I think you should invite all The Vets, in your neck of the woods, the ones you like and the ones you don't, to a get together, where you buy all the liquor (top shelf, of course) and build some bridges. Otherwise the hate's going kill you, man
Actually many of my best client referrals have come from vets and my largest and most profitable account is owned by a vet. Go figure.
It's very very rare if at all none have I ever seen something nailed to a foot that I thought ..shit that's gonna kill that horse ...and I have deff never seen any farrier do something he truly thought it would kill a horse ...talk with a friend that was a lawyer and he pretty much said what mark did in a nut shell..he also added any lawyer that took said case for horse owner was pretty much just bleed the horse for money because any competent lawyer knows it one hell of a hill to climb and horse owner would need deep pockets for the digging he would need to do...he also added he felt pretty damn sure a case could be made way better if the farrier took it upon him self to do what he wanted ..he did say jury if needed but prob not happen ..but he did say a defence lawyer would fair pretty well explaining how we have zero lic or test to pass and all that jazz being able to throw blame on the vet..he also said any decent lawyer would have farrier and horse owner team up and go after vet ..he said that's where ur money is anyway...his final thought said ..Travis if you shoe a horse as vet said make damn sure to get s vet sign off on it ..and if he would not sign off them make damn sure you ..vet ..owner are all standing there at the end of the Shoeing to give ya a nod on yes thats what I had in mind...and if vet said he would have done one thing diff do it right then..fix..don't allow all to walk away wiyhout all parties agreeing...
Did he have any suggestions for how to get all parties to stick around until you finish the horse to find out if they all approved?
Gary that is a pair of stocks for shoeing bad manured draft horses and such that was a 19 hand shier Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
No didnt think to get picks of that but it didnt fit well haha Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
owners who need their drafts shoed in a stock should be buried in the swamp for not teaching them as babies instead of waiting until they're too big to handle.
I believe that, Zach. after 11 years with drafts, i don't think people should be allowed to SELL them without them being halter broke, stand for the farrier and basic ground manners. most people have NO idea what they're doing with one when they buy it or how fast it grows up and can walk all over you.
These are for Smitty . . . Used Nikon camera bought on eBay last month. Testing Kodak Ektar 100 Film. Seems to attract flies.
