Legal - who is liable?

N

N2019

Active Member
Joined
10 September 2019
Messages
38
Visit site
Hello,

I am looking for some advice on this situation: a horse on trial without a loan contract. The horse has now been injured and currently in a veterinary hospital.

Who is liable for the vet bill? The owner or the loanee? Where there is no loan contract and the loanee was unable to reach the owner until at the veterinary hospital.

Thanks in advance.
 
What a nightmare. Is the loaner refusing to pay?

Are there text messages between the owner and loaner discussing the loan?
 
Amymay said:
What a nightmare. Is the loaner refusing to pay?

Are there text messages between the owner and loaner discussing the loan?
Click to expand...
The loanee is not refusing to pay but is in the process of buying the horse. Passport still in owners name, nothing purchased, no funds transferred yet. So if the loanee pays the vets bill, are they liable baring in mind the circumstances? And not owning the horse? To potentially not now own it in due course?
 
Pearlsasinger said:
If the horse is still owned by th owner and there is no loan contract (how foolish), the vet bill is the owner's responsibility. If the loaner has any moral fibre they will offer to go halves with the vet bill - but who would expect them to buy the horse unless it is a minor injury?
Click to expand...

The loaner is a friend who is happy to pay the vets bill but not willing to still purchase the horse at the original price agreed (verbal and nothing in writing). Would it be reasonable for the owner to agree to pay half, as she she technically still the legal owner? And there’s no contract.
The owner isn’t currently willing to budge on any negotiations and the horse is due to be picked up tomorrow, with a substantial injury.
 
Well what prats for sending/taking horse without this sort of situation covered in an agreement.

Morally the loaner should be paying the bill.

Legally I don’t know, best call the BHS helpline
 
As above, whoever took the horse to the hospital, consented to treatment and signed the paperwork is liable... and if they don’t pay the bill, the debt will be in their name.

Then the next argument who is liable for the injury and one for the lawyers. Depends on how the horse was injured, under who’s care, on who’s land, etc, etc , etc. Best sorting it amicably as the legal fees will probably outweigh the vet fees (and probably value of the horse...)
 
Oh, messy.

The only time I had a LWVTB, the agreement was that the owner would pay any bills, but that I wouldn't rack any big bills up. The horse would have been PTS if the bill was going to be in the thousands, as it was for sale by a business, and would be worthless anyway if it had a major injury.

The horse was not injured in my care, not that I bought him, but if it had been a minor injury such as needing a few stitches, in may care, I would simply have paid for it.

We didn't have anything in writing, but being as verbally we both wanted to pay for treatment, it was a pretty safe one!

I am surprised nothing was said. Does anyone have insurance?
 
nicola2019 said:
Hello,

I am looking for some advice on this situation: a horse on trial without a loan contract. The horse has now been injured and currently in a veterinary hospital.

Who is liable for the vet bill? The owner or the loanee? Where there is no loan contract and the loanee was unable to reach the owner until at the veterinary hospital.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

What a complicated situation, and awful for the owner, the prospective buyer and the horse.

What is the injury and what was the cause?
 
If the horse was on trial, the loaner hasn't yet agreed to buy the horse, so there is no way that it should be taken for granted that will happen. If the loaner had been sure that they wanted the horse, there would have been no trial period.
 
As others have stated under contract law whoever calls the vet and asks for treatment is legally responsible for the bill (although some may argue that if a horse is on full livery the YO has a “different” type of agreement... however again in law, this is not the case, whoever requests treatment and gives it the approval is legally liable for that bill.)

as to getting costs back, it will probably depend on what the injury/cause is. If the loaner/yard has been negligent in some way, then they are potentially liable. My old mare was a toad to handle in a couple of specific circumstances, which I warned them about. They then took it upon themselves to do exactly what I had warned them against, without asking me, and resulted in someone getting kicked. Totally their own fault.
 
Whoever took the horse to the vet and asked them to treat/signed consent forms is liable for the bill.
I know as this happened to me. I was the owner and the loaners took the seriously injured horse to the vets. Then they decided they didn’t feel like paying despite our agreement stating they were responsible for any injuries under their care.

Legally (and morally), they are liable IF they took the horse in and asked the vet to treat.
 
I think the bhs legal helpline would be your best bet. Or a lawyer. Those are the better routes if you’re after legal advice.
 
When my horse was on LWVTB before I bought her she was injured, the owner was on holiday. I called the vet, and notified the owner, she was still insured by the owner so if it had been a major issue the insurance would have paid. As it was just bute and antibiotics I paid as under the excess and I called the vet so the vets contract was with me.

We had a suitable loan agreement though which covered the situation.

It showed to me that such agreements are quite fraught really.
 
PatchyBabyHorse said:
Whoever took the horse to the vet and asked them to treat/signed consent forms is liable for the bill.
I know as this happened to me. I was the owner and the loaners took the seriously injured horse to the vets. Then they decided they didn’t feel like paying despite our agreement stating they were responsible for any injuries under their care.

Legally (and morally), they are liable IF they took the horse in and asked the vet to treat.
Click to expand...


Except that it might be possible to say that the loaner was acting as the owner's agent in an emergency situation. Or even that because the owner was not contactable, it was reasonable of the loaner to contact the vet and follow their advice.
 
Is there two separate questions ?

1 - should / could the loaner be forced to purchase the horse with a now 'substantial injury' - that is a clear no. There will have been some sort of verbal contract (daft not to get in writing) about a trial period. The loaner can decide not to purchase in the trail period so the horse still belongs to the owner

2 - who pays the vet. I think that is normally the person who instructs the vet / signs the paper work. If the vet was the owners usual vet and the vet was party to 'trying to get hold of owner in emergency' then they might be willing to chase the owner for the bill.
Morally the loaner should contribute.

I personally don't think the loaner is 'to blame' for a turnout injury or unless there is some clear negligence - horse are horse and constantly create imaginative ways to self harm. A turn out injury is common enough and not normally anyone's fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top