Puzzled - "wrong horse put down" article?

[Widgeon]

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/owners-devastation-wrong-horse-put-634764

I've been thinking about this all morning and have decided to post as I am slightly puzzled by it.

If I were the owner in question in this article, I wouldn't be wanting an apology from the idiot woman who brought the wrong horse out to be PTS (to say nothing of how I would feel about the vet) I would be wanting the full value of the horse! Even if just on principle, as I know the horse may not have been worth much. Surely there must be some legal comeback for her? It can't be the case that oh, yes, you had my property destroyed without my consent, but oh well, nothing I can do. That is barmy...

Any thoughts? As is probably obvious I have no idea of the law in cases like this, so can anyone enlighten me?

 

[Batgirl]

It is a very puzzlingly written story but it sounds as if it is the mother of the owner who is the 'idiot' at fault and therefore the value isn't really the issue?

A lot of miscommunication, for the Yard owner not to have been made aware is strange, for the vet not to question a healthy horse being put down unless they knew the situation is a little strange. The whole thing is rather strange.

 

[Orangehorse]

They sound completely uncaring, ignorant barstewards actually. Even if the correct horse had been PTS it would have left the other horse alone in his field, missing his friends so absolutely no thought had been given to the situation at all.

I suppose the horse had no real value, but I think the owner is well deserved of some financial recompense.

How ghastly.

 

[Batgirl]

They sound completely uncaring, ignorant barstewards actually. Even if the correct horse had been PTS it would have left the other horse alone in his field, missing his friends so absolutely no thought had been given to the situation at all.

I suppose the horse had no real value, but I think the owner is well deserved of some financial recompense.

How ghastly.

Who is supposed to recompense her? The YO wasn't informed and the Vet put down the 2 horses that he was instructed to, presented by a family member of the owner? (obviously the mother should pay something if they are that kind of family).

 

[Widgeon]

It is a very puzzlingly written story but it sounds as if it is the mother of the owner who is the 'idiot' at fault and therefore the value isn't really the issue?

No, I think it was the mother of the owner of the other horses - the ones that *were* meant to be PTS - who led out a horse that was not in fact belonging to her daughter.

"....she presented him with the wrong horse — Round The Bend instead of one of her daughter’s horses."

But yes, it is very strange!!

 

[GirlFriday]

^ This.

I agree that owner of the one mistakenly PTS should be getting the full value of her horse from either the YO (duty of care?) or the other owner... possibly it would be the YO to pay the owner in the article (negligence? unlikely to be a specific clause about this situation in most livery contracts!) and then try to claim it back from the owner of the one that shouldn't have been PTS under the kind of 'pay for what you damage on the yard' rule in some livery contracts but possibly a direct claim against the owner of the other horse. ETA but obviously Citizen's Advice/Trading Standards/BHS legal line would be good ports if call...

Sadly healthy horses are PTS all the time and many people on this forum would advise the owner of a retired horse to do so for financial or time reasons if they wanted so I don't really see that the vet is at fault. They have no legal obligation to ignore the instructions of an 'owner' and, without a micro chip check, couldn't even be sure they had the right one from the passport really. If the horse wasn't intended to enter the food chain or be claimed for on insurance then I'm not really sure why a vet would check identity. If they had to for PTS would we be saying they had to scan every animal for every treatment just in case some muppet presented the wrong one? (Possibly a good check, but a slight admin overhead for a very rare occurrence surely?)

 

[luckyoldme]

it s horrific all round.
the lady who owns the horses left it to someone who didnt evan know her horses to be with them at the end.
the mother of the horses owner sounds really uncaring, and sad as it sounds, i know a mother and daughter team who are quite easily evil enough to have done this knowing what they were doing.
Its really hard to say how you can protect people from people as stupid and evil as the mother and daughter involved in this story.

 

[Widgeon]

I don't really see that the vet is at fault.

Yes, unless there is legislation that I am unaware of (quite likely!) then it seems that the vet had very poor admin procedure, but that may not be an offence - he did as he was asked. It's the owner of the other horses I'd be chasing I think. Or their mother. If someone took my car away to be crushed thinking it was a different car, I would want them to pay. Saying sorry surely isn't nearly enough. All very bizarre.

 

[Widgeon]

Its really hard to say how you can protect people from people as stupid and evil as the mother and daughter involved in this story.

Perhaps by making it mandatory for vets to do some basic ID checks before PTS? But I agree that laws are not enough - some people are so uncaring / cruel / stupid that they will always find a way to hurt other people and animals.

 

[Batgirl]

No, I think it was the mother of the owner of the other horses - the ones that *were* meant to be PTS - who led out a horse that was not in fact belonging to her daughter.

"....she presented him with the wrong horse — Round The Bend instead of one of her daughter’s horses."

But yes, it is very strange!!

Oh I see! In which case then yes I would be getting it from the owner of the other horses (I thought all 3 belonged to the same person!).

 

[Orangehorse]

It wasn't the vet's fault at all. He attended to PTS two horses, which he did. If they weren't going into the food chain then there was no need to check the passports. Although I bet he does from now on, or at least ascertain he has the right horse.

 

[Widgeon]

It wasn't the vet's fault at all. He attended to PTS two horses, which he did. If they weren't going into the food chain then there was no need to check the passports. Although I bet he does from now on, or at least ascertain he has the right horse.

Yes, I think I agree - it might have been a good idea to check (bet you're right there!) but he only did as he was asked. I don't think it was unreasonable for him to expect that he would be presented with the right horses.

 

[ozpoz]

It was negligent all round -the yard owner, the vet and the person who arranged to have her horses put down but wasn't there.
Poor, poor owner - I'd be beyond furious and upset.They'd be chipped, as ex racehorses and I'm surprised if it isn't mandatory to check i.d.

 

[Pinkvboots]

in all the years I have been around horses I have never seen a vet identify a horse before it was pts, and I have seen quite a few pts over the years I have never really thought about before but hearing that story it makes you wonder why it's not compulsory for the horse to be identified first, it's so sad that poor owner it's a terrible thing to happen

 

[alainax]

I'm shocked you can just book a vet, bring in a random horse from a field and he will kill it. Surely there has to be some sort of check?

 

[RaposadeGengibre]

I'm shocked you can just book a vet, bring in a random horse from a field and he will kill it. Surely there has to be some sort of check?

This!

 

[ester]

It was negligent all round -the yard owner, the vet and the person who arranged to have her horses put down but wasn't there.
Poor, poor owner - I'd be beyond furious and upset.They'd be chipped, as ex racehorses and I'm surprised if it isn't mandatory to check i.d.

chipping for racehorses didnt come until 1999 so it depends when he retired from racing?

What I don't get is that she wasn't even told that it was happening, as she said she wouldn't have put him in that field that day as he would then have been left on his own...

 

[Pearlsasinger]

If I were the owner, I would be pursuing this with the woman who presented my horse to the vet and with YO.

 

[PapaverFollis]

I can't even imagine the utter horror of this. What an absolutely stupid woman who brought the wrong horse in. And her daughter. How can you not inform the yard owner and your field sharer of what you intend? I also find it amazing that you can present any horse to a vet and they'll go ahead. I thought they would check, when we had our old boy pts the vet didn't check anything but he was our regular vet and knew us and the horse very well!

What a complete nightmare. If it was my horse I'd be beyond livid and be doing what I could to get compensation for the value of the horse plus the emotional trauma. I would not be letting it rest on getting an apology!

 

[frankster]

This a worry I think, especially to those who rely on third party help with horses at such times. We had the local huntsman come to us, and again he knew the horse so if I had left a 17hh tb in the stable instead of my tank of a horse, he would have been suspicious I think.

What is the point of passports?

 

[RhaLoulou]

I'm shocked you can just book a vet, bring in a random horse from a field and he will kill it. Surely there has to be some sort of check?

Exactly! I have gone to the trouble of informing my vets that my yard owner and a friend can make a decision regarding treatment of my horses in my absence, I would expect that to extend to horses being euthanasied.
One of the vets we use waited for me to arrive before he gave two of mine their boosters even though another livery said she would hold them. I would have been cross if he had done them before I got there. ( he was early)

 

[Undecided]

For the horse to be unwell enough, even age related, to be pts, would the vet or at least a member of the surgery not have seen to the horse before to try alternative treatment or administer pain meds to keep the animal comfortable until the deed was done and therefore recognize them? Or is this just my country-town mentality?

 

[Hoof_Prints]

It doesn't sound right, you can argue the vet isn't at fault, but surely any vet with any basic professionalism, common sense and compassion would check all was being done correctly? My vet certainly did when I had my two PTS earlier this year. I also, as a responsible owner left both horses's passports outside each stable for the vet to check (I could have never been there in person, and I'm glad I wasn't) . He would never dream of just turning up and putting a horse down in a non-emergency situation, without a prior consultation to evaluate the owner and horse's circumstances. There was a bit of conflict when a family member strongly disagreed with my decision to PTS, and my vet confirmed all of the above.

It's very, very upsetting and I can't imagine what the owner is going through.

 

[Leonor]

How can you be so heartless when you have been responsible for this.That womans cold response speaks volumes.No remorse only after being told by the yardowner to say something and still no real apologies.It makes you wonder how she treats her horses.I actually wouldnt be suprised if this wasnt accidental.

 

[Alec Swan]

The article is very badly written. Come on H&H, wake up, your standards of journalism are appalling.

So, it seems that two horses are to be put down. The mother of the owner (the M-o-t-o) of the two horses concerned is there to officiate. The M-o-t-o leads out the wrong horse. It's put down. Am I right so far?

The responsibility lays with the person who assumed responsibility, the M-o-t-o. It isn't the responsibility of either the vet or the yard owner. The owner of the wrongly identified horse has a legal claim and I'd guess by now that the lady concerned has checked her insurance policies.

It isn't the first time that it's happened, and it won't be the last.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

.I actually wouldnt be suprised if this wasnt accidental.

Neither would I. Horse was a 25 year old ex point to point horse (how many of those are alive at twenty five, never mind healthy) being looked after (on grass livery?) by a friend when the owner was living a long way away. Can't help wondering, given the lack of apology, if there is not a lot more to this than meets the eye.

 

[dominobrown]

Neither would I. Horse was a 25 year old ex point to point horse (how many of those are alive at twenty five, never mind healthy) being looked after (on grass livery?) by a friend when the owner was living a long way away. Can't help wondering, given the lack of apology, if there is not a lot more to this than meets the eye.

I read it similar. The person 'resposible' was the mother of the owner. The owner was 'away' leaving on old 25 hear old Tb on grass livery. The mother might of thought it would be better pts, if there was nobody to give it the attention it needs, maybe it loses weight over winter, not doing as well? Anyways whatever the real reason everyone involved are bad communicators!

 

[popsdosh]

Neither would I. Horse was a 25 year old ex point to point horse (how many of those are alive at twenty five, never mind healthy) being looked after (on grass livery?) by a friend when the owner was living a long way away. Can't help wondering, given the lack of apology, if there is not a lot more to this than meets the eye.

As per normal you are way off the mark making malicious assumptions . I think you are getting worse! You also make hugely prejudiced comments about older racehorses in general and you clearly havent got a clue.

Indeed the horse was very special to louise having been with her through her PtoP career and was kept on grass livery on one of her horse owners yards. It is just an unfortunate accident that happened it could happen with many of us at some point.
Louise quite rightly is upset,but honestly everybody all this talk of monetary compensation and other thoughts ,will not bring the horse back and is of no consequence to her nor would she expect it.
Hindsight is a great thing but you cannot change what has happened.

 

[popsdosh]

I read it similar. The person 'resposible' was the mother of the owner. The owner was 'away' leaving on old 25 hear old Tb on grass livery. The mother might of thought it would be better pts, if there was nobody to give it the attention it needs, maybe it loses weight over winter, not doing as well? Anyways whatever the real reason everyone involved are bad communicators!

The person presenting the horses for the Vet has nothing to do with Louise ! she was the mother of the owner whose horses should have been put down.
Why are so many assuming the horse was neglected as I can assure you it wasnt.

Dont you just love the way stories get changed from what it is.

 

[luckyoldme]

For the horse to be unwell enough, even age related, to be pts, would the vet or at least a member of the surgery not have seen to the horse before to try alternative treatment or administer pain meds to keep the animal comfortable until the deed was done and therefore recognize them? Or is this just my country-town mentality?

no, some people put them down before they get to that stage