WHAT WOULD BE YOUR VERDICT?

G

gg99

New User
Joined
2 October 2012
Messages
6
Visit site
A friends horse went to be schooled and for trailer training and when she went to pick her horse up after 7 weeks she paid by cheque,then the trainer tried to load her horse but took 5 hours to load it,after using a chifney and sedation,despite the owner trying to stop them.The next day the owner had to call the vet as the horse was trembling and could not eat,the vet concluded that she had trauma and swelling to the mouth and was given veterinary treatment,it took 8 weeks for her mouth to heal which is scarred for life inside the mouth and could not be ridden.The owner stoped the cheque and the trainer took her to court,yet the owner had vet bills and had to have the horse reschooled and was left we a scarred horse.The vet report stated it was the chifney bit which due to its inappropriate use had caused trauma to the horse.The judge ruled in favour of the trainer who had a solicitor,so the owner was left with vet bills to pay,reschooling and the trainer to pay who had caused pain and suffering to the horse,what would be your verdict?
 
This may sound harsh, and I'm sorry if it does..

My initial thoughts were, if you were having a horse trained to load, I would want to see it walk in the trailer before I paid.

My second thought was how on earth does someone sedate and put a chiffney on the horse right in front of the owner who is saying no.

My third thought is, if the judge ruled in favour of the yard, something else must have happened/been involved in the case, or why would they.

I feel very sorry for the horse and its owner though. It sounds a complete mess all round.
 
I think there has to be some missing details if the judge ruled in the trainers favour. Even if the above is the complete truth, I think the owner is equally responsible for the horses injury. If owner watched the trainer spend 5hrs with a chifney without stopping them, they are as bad imo. Likewise, if that was the case why did it take till the next day to notice the injuries? Sorry, I think there's more to it than you know op.
 
The owner did not know what a chifney bit was and apparently there was a few of them and she felt overwhelmed as she said that if she had left her horse there they were going to leave it without food and water until it loaded the next day,its made be think twice about sending a horse away as if they did that infront of the owner,what were they doing when she was not there.I agree i dont think she should of stopped the cheque but i think it was unfair of the judge to make her pay for the schooling which obviously had not worked, otherwise the horse would have loaded.She said the judge was only interested in the stopped cheque and was not concerned about the trauma caused to the horse.
 
you say the trainer had a solicitor - did the owner take legal advice/representation?

I am not a legal expert, but would have thought the issue to argue in court was that she did not get the service she paid for therefore stopped the cheque as a consequence...

Hope the horse recovers from this awful experience
 
I think the injuries only became apparent when she saw all its hay chewed up in balls in the stable the next day.she does feel awful about what happened but said she felt helpless when she saw them trying to load her.I think what she was saddened about was the judge did not take into consideration what the trainer had done to the horse,just the fact that she had stopped a cheque!
 
A judge can only rule on the information given.. If the trainer took the person to court over the stopped cheque and your friend agreed that yes they had stopped the cheque then unfortunatley or not the judge has to rule in the trainers favour. It may not seem fair but imo judges are not interested in the whys and where fores and if money was owed it was owed. The mistake was paying in the first place
 
She only stopped the cheque after speaking to the trainer who gave her a mouthful of abuse after she asked if he was going to pay for the vet fees and a legal friend advised her not to pay for a service she had not received,some advice!,dont think they are budding friends anymore.
 
It is illegal to stop a cheque. A little known fact but a fact.

We paid by cheque for a wagon living refurb. Collected the lorry at night and didn't look at it until the next afternoon. Previous visits whilst it had been in-build had been fine, we had no worries about the finished article, how wrong that proved to be.

On inspecting the lorry the next day we found dreadful workmanship and stopped the cheque. Unable to negotiate with the coachbuilder, who claimed his work to be perfect, we ended up in court.

We lost, even though the gas fitments were so dangerous, had we turned the fire on it would have killed us. We provided statements from engineers for both the gas and electrical work. Both were lethal and the coachbuilder was not qualified to install the appliances in the first place.

The judge found on the coachbuilders side purely because we illegally stopped the cheque. We should have honoured the cheque, then taken the coachbuilder to court and sued him for poor/dangerous work.

A bitter bitter, costly and upsetting experience to say the least.
 
Adorable Alice you have summed it up.The judge was only intersted in the stopped cheque,he showed no concern over the ill tratment suffered by the horse and the intimidation to my friend,it was all text book,i should know as im a retired solicitor!
I didnt give my friend any legal advice as it happened before i knew her,which is a shame as i think i would have come out of retirement despite knowing what the verdict was going to be.
Why are people so text book,cant they see passed the cover.
 
A cheque is a promise to pay, once you have given a cheque, you have aknowledged the debt. Whereas, if you dispute a debt prior to paying for non completion of a job, much more likely to have a chance. Depends a bit on the judge as well. Owner not represented in court, makes it difficult.
 
Then I think your friend needs to get her own legal advice and sue them over the seperate issues (ie, nothing to do with the stopped cheque, but the damage to the horse and the bad service..)
 
It is illegal to stop a cheque - and that's why the trainer won the case. Your friend could have put a counter claim in against the trainer for the financial loss regarding vet treatments etc and it is possible that if the evidence was compelling enough the trainer may have dropped the case. As it stands now if your friend feels she hss suffered a loss due to the trainers mishandling she can make a claim against the trainer for that loss. The court will want to see evidence and will consider the case based on what can "reasonably" be expected. Vets reports as to the damage to the mouth, loss in value of the animal as a result etc etc. It needs to be factual - no talk of "emotional distress" etc. You friend should argue that it is reasonable to expect an experienced trainer to be able to train the horse without causing any physical damage. If the case is put together well enough the trainer may well settle out of court rather than risk losing a case and damaging his "reputation". Equally so if it goes before a judge the judge may either agree or disagree that damages are to be covered by the trainer - that will depend on the strength of the evidence.
 
Another point to consider - if the trainer took the owner to court for "stopping a cheque" as opposed to "an unpaid debt" the judge cannot consider anything other than the question "was the cheque stopped?" - if the case had been about an unpaid debt the judge could take into account "why" the debt was unpaid before making a judgement. There is just no excuse in the eyes of the law for stopping a cheque.
 
Stopping the cheque in the circumstances was dishonest so I am not surprised at the result. Your friend behaved badly. If you go for a meal and your food is cold you don't just leg it without paying you speak to the manager and ask them to rectify the situation or tell them why you aren't paying.

What your friend should have done is refused to pay until the horse had loaded successfully or asked for her money back when he didn't load. She then should have made a claim for the vets bills and loss of use/diminution in value of the horse. This could be done between insurance companies which would have saved her privately funding litigation and would mean that she had better prospects of recovery.
 
gg99 said:
The owner did not know what a chifney bit was and apparently there was a few of them and she felt overwhelmed as she said that if she had left her horse there they were going to leave it without food and water until it loaded the next day,its made be think twice about sending a horse away as if they did that infront of the owner,what were they doing when she was not there.I agree i dont think she should of stopped the cheque but i think it was unfair of the judge to make her pay for the schooling which obviously had not worked, otherwise the horse would have loaded.She said the judge was only interested in the stopped cheque and was not concerned about the trauma caused to the horse.
Click to expand...

To be quite frank the owner shouldn't have a horse. 5 hours of watching him haul her horse around with something further than a headcollar or bridle and not stopping the guy? He wouldn't have lasted 30 seconds before he was lamped into the trailer if that was mine. If she was that scared you pick up the phone to the police or a welfare charity. You don't watch for 5 hours.

Simples, this case was about the stopped cheque. You want to argue about the lack of schooling/trauma caused you get a solicitor and take them on separate charges.

Also if the horse is now unrideable, you get a vet statement to that effect and cause and inform your insurance company.

Pan
 
Last edited:
Its a shame it ended that way- couldnt see anyone knowinly using a chiffney on my horse or any type of gaget i didnt know about without me getting involved BUT everyone is different and not all people feel comfortable voicing an opinion.

Lesson Learnt.
 
To be honest, whether she knew what a chifney was or not, surely she could see the damage it was doing, right in front of her eyes for 5 hours! She clearly watched her horses being traumatised and stressed yet did nothing.

No excuse for that.
 
guido16 said:
To be honest, whether she knew what a chifney was or not, surely she could see the damage it was doing, right in front of her eyes for 5 hours! She clearly watched her horses being traumatised and stressed yet did nothing.

No excuse for that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You do have to wonder about some people.
 
Who loaded the horse when your friend bought it? Who loaded the horse to get it to the trainer?

Sounds like your friend needs some assertiveness classes. As owners we are often the last line in our horses' defence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top