hearsay lawsuit

[ray steele]

Does anyone reading these boards have any knowledge of a lawsuit involving a farrier and a pointed clip that penetrated the sole of a horse. i ask because I heard that there was one going on and would like the find out the particulars. I think such a suit if infact real could have bearing on all farriers in the future . I would appreciate any info.

Please remember I am saying that this is hearsay until and if further info is forthcoming.

Regards

Ray Steele

[Rick Burten]

Ray

I too have heard this. Since I heard it second hand, the following is only what has been told to me. The owner of this horse is suing because as stated the horse stepped on the clip. The contention is that because the farrier formed the clip with a sharp rather than a blunt tip, the farrier was negligent and should be responsible for the injury and its aftermath. One of the expert witnesses' for the plantiff is a farrier turned vet.
Evidently the farrier either does not carry insurance or carries only a minimal amount. I can only hope that the farrier(defendant) has retained counsel who is well versed in equine matters and who will be able to competently cross-examine the expert witness and find expert witnesses' for the defense.

Since "cautions" about the deletorious impact clips can have on the foot if stepped on, abound in the literature, and since there is no actual industry standard regarding clip shape, and since examples of clip tips can be found that range from rounded to pointed, I'm really wondering where this suit will go.

This is one instance where if I knew all the particulars of the lawsuit and thought the suit to be 'bogus', I'd offer my services to the defense(should they want it) gratis, to help out a fellow farrier.

All that said, we/I first need to know the facts of the case.

[tbloomer]

I heard about this case.

The plaintiff hired a veterinarian to testify as an expert witness. The horse is a high dollar hunter/jumper and the plaintiff is well moneyed. The farrier is accused of grinding the clip (machine made clipped keg shoe) to a sharp point.

The plaintiff’s expert witness will testifying that the clip ground to a point is malpractice because it poses a far greater danger to the horse than an unmodified machine made clip on a keg shoe. The horse stepped on the clip in the field and the wound became infected. The horse was treated for the infection and has since fully recovered.

The Plaintiff is suing for malpractice, loss of use of the horse, veterinary bills, and loss of value of the horse for sale.

The farrier has no insurance.

Last year I attended a Dave Farley clinic. He talked about a similar case in Florida. Since that case, Dave Farley said he will not put a clipped shoe or any other shoe modification on a horse in the state of Florida without a veterinary prescription.

The maximum amount of farrier malpractice insurance offered by Markell insurance is $20,000. They will sell you a multi-million dollar general liability insurance policy, but the malpractice coverage is limited to $20k. In a case like the one mentioned above, I would be surprised if $20k would make much of a dent in the award should the plaintiff win their case.

As far as I'm concerned, all clips present a danger to a horse regardless of wether they are sharpened to a point or rounded off and blunt. Anything that penetrates the sole presents a possible life threatening danger to a horse.

I am curious if anyone else has heard about this case or knows who the farrier is. If anybody can find out that information, I would like to contribute to this farrier's legal defense fund.

Tom Bloomer, CF

[Mike Ferrara]

Speaking from my legal risk management training (part of dive instructor training), in theory. they would have to convince the court that the damages occured because of the pointed clip (wouldn't have happened otherwise) AND that using a pointed clip is not something that a reasonably prudent farrier would do.

Though some crazy things happen in court and it can be hard to predict, I doubt they could reasonably do either. A simple look in a farrier supply catalog where premade pointed clips are sold shows that their use is common. That shoots down one of the elements theoretically required for a successful suit...duty of care, breach of that duty of care and damages directly resultant from that breach.

[Dianne Lemmon]

I heard about this case.

The plaintiff hired a veterinarian to testify as an expert witness. The horse is a high dollar hunter/jumper and the plaintiff is well moneyed. The farrier is accused of grinding the clip (machine made clipped keg shoe) to a sharp point.

The plaintiff’s expert witness will testifying that the clip ground to a point is malpractice because it poses a far greater danger to the horse than an unmodified machine made clip on a keg shoe. The horse stepped on the clip in the field and the wound became infected. The horse was treated for the infection and has since fully recovered.

The Plaintiff is suing for malpractice, loss of use of the horse, veterinary bills, and loss of value of the horse for sale.

The farrier has no insurance.

Last year I attended a Dave Farley clinic. He talked about a similar case in Florida. Since that case, Dave Farley said he will not put a clipped shoe or any other shoe modification on a horse in the state of Florida without a veterinary prescription.

The maximum amount of farrier malpractice insurance offered by Markell insurance is $20,000. They will sell you a multi-million dollar general liability insurance policy, but the malpractice coverage is limited to $20k. In a case like the one mentioned above, I would be surprised if $20k would make much of a dent in the award should the plaintiff win their case.

As far as I'm concerned, all clips present a danger to a horse regardless of wether they are sharpened to a point or rounded off and blunt. Anything that penetrates the sole presents a possible life threatening danger to a horse.

I am curious if anyone else has heard about this case or knows who the farrier is. If anybody can find out that information, I would like to contribute to this farrier's legal defense fund.

Tom Bloomer, CF


Tom,

What a great idea for a Defense fund for farriers. I wonder if the AFA and/or the Guild would pick up on this idea.

As far as the danger of using clips (sharpened or not) I feel that point is moot. I have seen enough horses half pull a shoe off and step on the nails. Now you have not just one puncture of the foot but 2-4 deeper punctures and generally they are well into the sole and much deeper due to the lack of resistance. Now what do you do? Throw the baby out with the bathwater?

This is all just symptomatic of a greater problem in our society. Frivolous lawsuits, and as long as we have lawyers and insurance companies we will have this problem of the lack of accountablity and happenstance.

Dianne

[tbloomer]

Speaking from my legal risk management training (part of dive instructor training), in theory. they would have to convince the court that the damages occured because of the pointed clip (wouldn't have happened otherwise) AND that using a pointed clip is not something that a reasonably prudent farrier would do.

Though some crazy things happen in court and it can be hard to predict, I doubt they could reasonably do either. A simple look in a farrier supply catalog where premade pointed clips are sold shows that their use is common. That shoots down one of the elements theoretically required for a successful suit...duty of care, breach of that duty of care and damages directly resultant from that breach.

Gee, I thought it was all based on how well the expert witness could dazzle the judge and/or jury. Meanwhile some poor farrier is possibly going to be bankrupt - even the cost to defend such a case could overwhealm most of us.

I'm digging around trying to find out more information. If I can find out who the farrier is, I will scrounge as much money as I can to help with his/her defense fund. Anyone else care to join me in that comitment?

Tom Bloomer, CF

[Mike Ferrara]

Last year I attended a Dave Farley clinic. He talked about a similar case in Florida. Since that case, Dave Farley said he will not put a clipped shoe or any other shoe modification on a horse in the state of Florida without a veterinary prescription.

Intreresting point. In diving we often modify equipment but never if it's going to be sold or rented. Once you make modifications you become a manufacturer and potentially open yourself up to product liability. If you apply it as purchased you're only part is the application.

If there is legal precedent indicating hand made or modified shoes as a significant legal risk it might be something to think about.

All this kind of thing is going to do is raise the cost of shoeing. If we have to carry the kind of insurance that a surgeon does we'll have to charge like one.

[Mike Ferrara]

Gee, I thought it was all based on how well the expert witness could dazzle the judge and/or jury. Meanwhile some poor farrier is possibly going to be bankrupt - even the cost to defend such a case could overwhealm most of us.


Tom Bloomer, CF

That's why I was careful to say "in theory". There are many books where you can read the theory but a courtroom can be a bizarre place.

One good book is "The Law and the Dive Professional". It's obviously not directly related to farriery but it does a good job of explaining the anatomy of a law suit in laymen terms.

[tbloomer]

All this kind of thing is going to do is raise the cost of shoeing. If we have to carry the kind of insurance that a surgeon does we'll have to charge like one.

I think that is exactly what Dave Farley does - charge like a surgeon. But, then he is The Man!

Tom Bloomer, CF

[ray steele]

To all,

i would like that we keep an ear to the ground and obliquely ask around about this suit, I think we need to find out if it exists, and if it does then find out the particulars. The legal systems relys on precedents, such a case can, I believe set such precedent, for or against.

My original request still stands, if anyone knows of, or can shake the bushes for any info I believe it could be helpful to us all.

It'sa big country but a small industry, if it is really happening I think we collectively should be able to find it out. (humor) Is this being pro active? My avowed socialist brother in law would be proud ,I think!

regards

Ray Steele

[George Geist]

More importantly find out who the plaintiff is. NOBODY TOUCH THEIR HORSES!!!! Let them rot!
George

[wwhite1973]

Originally Posted by Tom Bloomer
Gee, I thought it was all based on how well the expert witness could dazzle the judge and/or jury. Meanwhile some poor farrier is possibly going to be bankrupt - even the cost to defend such a case could overwhealm most of us.

I'm digging around trying to find out more information. If I can find out who the farrier is, I will scrounge as much money as I can to help with his/her defense fund. Anyone else care to join me in that comitment?

Tom Bloomer, CF

You can count me in Tom.

Back in the early 80's my ex and I owned a hair salon. We rented the stations in the shop and therefore the stylists were considered self employed. One of the girls gave a perm to a lady who spent a lot of time in a pool. Due to the enormous amount of chlorine in the hair the hair turned to mush. The lady hired an attorney and sued us and the stylist. By the time the case got to court nature had pretty much corrected the problem through new hair growth and the case was dismissed. The lady wanted the perm even though the stylist told her in advance what might happen.
This used to pretty much be the norm with these kinds of suits, unless someone cut a peice out of an ear or did other bodily harm. However as I understand it, in recent years there have been some people awarded money because of orange hair and other things that nature could easily correct through time. I am only speaking of my experience in the state of Missouri. I am sure each state is different. I just hope this guy/gal has a judge who understands horses and the equine industry.

Wayne

[ray steele]

George,

With all respect , I think that finding out all the particulars is much more important than boycotting services at this point, we in my opinion need to get info , because it is hearsay, we don't know what the case is, perhaps the plaintif has grounds, it would be wrong ,in my opinion to blackball someone as retribution .

i then ask you to seek the info, when and if we get it.then we can discuss it and form an informed way to proceed.

Regards

Ray Steele

[ray steele]

As a P.S.

If someone knows anything about this and would like to pass on that knowledge confidentially, please feel free to contact me by private e mail.
I,m sure that others would be willing to accept the info also.


redsteele@hotmail .com or phone 1 413 863 2443,

Regards

Ray Steele

[Phil Armitage]

I suppose one could also argue it is a land owners fault if a horse steps on a sharp rock. Here is some more food for thought, one could also argue a blunt clip not burnt into the foot is an accident waiting to happen, clips burnt in is problem, no clips is an accident waiting to happen, shoes is an accident waiting to happen, no shoes is an accident waiting to happen, it can go on and on, plastic, aluminum, glueon, pads.............................................

[calshoer]

I know a horse some years ago who partially pulled a clipped shoe and punctured his sole just inside the laminae when he stepped on it. A well ROUNDED clip mind you. Not pointed at all. Luckily it was discovered promptly, bled a bunch when they pulled the shoe off, but was treated promptly too, and no infection insued. It missed P3. No one was angry at anybody, the barn and horse owners knew the risks of clips. It was accepted as "one of those things"
Gosh, a horse can puncture their soles on a darn rock in the field, it doesn't take a clip to do it.
I also knew a horse that punctured his foot from beside the frog all the way out his heel bulb, on an english SPUR that had fallen off someones foot in the arena and hadn't been found yet. The spur had only been in the arena an hour or so. The rider hadn't got out there to look for it yet. It was quite a sight, the vet lived on the ranch grounds and took pictures and Xrays before he pulled it out. Luckily it missed everything vital.
Tell you one thing, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit will likely have a hard time getting any farrier in the future when word gets out. I wouldn't touch one like that with a ten foot pole. Patty

[George Geist]

Patty,
Precisely. Thats exacly what I was talking about. Sorry Mr. Steele but if this did in fact happen they have no grounds and should be run out of the horse business. Horses can and do step on anything and everything. I too have seen them step on clips. More often than not it's because they dont keep them on a proper schedule. But as was said before I've seen them much more often step on nails from unclipped shoes than they do clips.

Either way, these things happen. That's just life. To bring about a lawsuit for a horse just being a horse is shameless. It ought not be tolerated.
George

[Mike Ferrara]

Stepping on things they shouldn't is one of the things that horses are best at.

[ray steele]

George,

I feel the same way that you do, but I do not want to loose site of the objectives and those are to me any way:

1st find out if it is in fact a true situation.

2nd identify the parties

3rd help this farrier out if needed

4th be sure that if it goes to trial and that a professional witness is involved that all sides of the story are told/ and the parameters are set for future cases.

I say future cases because it appears that they will be coming. I'm sure we can all tell "war stories "of what we have seen,hell i've seen tree roots and frozen mud spikes go thru soles and come out above the hairline, but that is not what I think we should be discussing here.

If this is a true case, we can not boycott the owner without knowing who the owner is. Then we need to know the sides of the story. That is my point, let's not put the cart before the horse. One thing at a time. We need your collective help.

and George, please do not call me Mr. Steele, it make my wife feel old, ,save it for Mr. Burten. Thanks in advance

If it is ok with you folks, I intend to keep bringing this back up for the next week to keep it on the 1st page, in case a new reader comes on who can shed some lite. If this is not agreeable to any of you, Baron , you can even have a say in this ,let me know.

regards

Ray Steele

[Phil Armitage]

Just for the record, horse owners also read this. It is important for horse owners to understand there are unavoidable risks involved no matter what that are beyond our control. I read comments on this forum about not useing clips. Clips have a purpose and are used to help keep shoes on, and it can easly be argured that injurys can occur if clips are not used. The problem I see is the lack of understanding what the purpose of things are and that there are no qaurentees. All anyone can do is do our best to do what horses need depending on what they do, conformation and enviroment. Just my two cents worth.

[tbloomer]

TO ALL WHO ARE CONCERNED:

I AM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THIS THREAD. RAY STARTED THE THREAD AT MY REQUEST. MY INFORMATION CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE MOUTH OF THE EXPERT WITNESS. THIS MORNING I RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN SETTLED AND THAT THE EXPERT WITNESS WILL NOT BE CALLED TO TESTIFY.

THANK YOU ALL FOR STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE ON BEHALF OF YOUR TRADE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW EVERYTHING THAT I KNOW ABOUT THIS SITUATION, PLEASE CONTACT ME PRIVATELY.

ALTHOUGH THE CASE HAS BEEN (ACCORDING TO MY SOURCE) SETTLED OUT OF COURT, I BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT. WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE, BECAUSE WE ARE ALL VULNERABLE TO THIS SITUATION REGARDLESS OF HOW DILIGENT WE ARE IN OUR PRACTICES.

If you would like to check my facts privately, give me a call. I will not put the names of the parties involved on this board. Those of you who have talked to me privately should consider the fact that you have gotten your information from me. Therefore, the act of sharing the names that I have named is hearsay. I have intentionally left the "names" out of this forum because I believe that naming the parties online would cause irrational behavior from some individuals.

Thomas Bloomer, CF
302-492-0202

[Phil Armitage]

Tom, I agree that it is important to discuss issues like this. Thank you for shareing it in a very professional manner. When something like this comes up we can do a lot to help each other by stepping up to the plate and shareing our knowledge and experience.

[ray steele]

I just finished speaking with Tom,
It seems that the info about this case started and was stopped on the word of the of the expert witness, ie Tom heard about the case from the expert witness and the info that it was settled was came to him through another person who spoke to the expert witness and was told that it was settled.

I want you all to know that while I am glad to hear that this is settled , the whole thing was hearsay, as I titled it, I would not want anyone to think that I used you folks or this board for any other reason than to get proper /correctinformation and aid. Thank you all ,

Now I might suggest that some of our "war stories " be told for the record so that others may realize that there is no absolutes in this profession..

Regards and thank you for your time and efforts.

Ray Steele

[Mike Ferrara]

Thomas, I hate to be part of the reason you end up spending all day on the phone but I would like to know the details of the complaint and the resolution.

I've probably pointed this out before but, in diving, one deterant to law suits is the fact that most of the insurance companies will NEVER settle out of court. Everything goes to trial. That lets every one know that it's not ever going to be easy and there are no quick payouts.

IMO, the same should be done in farriery. There is some risk in trimming a foot, driving nails in a foot, having a chunk of iron or aluminum traveling with the foot at high speeds and the application of things like clips or bands. The risk may be small and the lesser of evils but it's there. The horse owner should understand and accept those risks. If they are unwilling then they shouldn't use shoes and probably shouldn't have horses.

Maybe we should all be using professionally written waivers and statements of work and responsibility that every owner signs before we touch their horses. They are used in other industries and they do help despite what some wrongly state about them not being worth the paper they're written on.

[tbloomer]

Thomas, I hate to be part of the reason you end up spending all day on the phone but I would like to know the details of the complaint and the resolution.

So would I. The only details I have were already posted here. I non't know what state the case was filed in or the names of the plaintiff and defendent. I was hoping that someone here on horseshoes.com had heard about the case and thus give us the opportunity to help support the defnedent.


I've probably pointed this out before but, in diving, one deterant to law suits is the fact that most of the insurance companies will NEVER settle out of court. Everything goes to trial. That lets every one know that it's not ever going to be easy and there are no quick payouts.


I lived in South Florida for 6 years. Logged about 1200 dives. Participated in two international human powered submarine races with the Florida Atlantic University scientific dive team. EVERY professional dive operator that I know has been sued at least one time. (That's about 20 law suits that I know about in a period of 6 years.) One of my dive budies (an Oceeanography Phd.) has testified as an expert witness in scores of cases. He testifies on behalf of dive operators. It amazes me that people think that the boat captain can be held responsible for someone having a heart attack while diving. Like they should give everybody a complete physical examination and an EKG before allowing them to get on the boat.


IMO, the same should be done in farriery. There is some risk in trimming a foot, driving nails in a foot, having a chunk of iron or aluminum traveling with the foot at high speeds and the application of things like clips or bands. The risk may be small and the lesser of evils but it's there. The horse owner should understand and accept those risks. If they are unwilling then they shouldn't use shoes and probably shouldn't have horses.

Maybe we should all be using professionally written waivers and statements of work and responsibility that every owner signs before we touch their horses. They are used in other industries and they do help despite what some wrongly state about them not being worth the paper they're written on.

Every commercial dive boat I have ever been on has required me to sign a liability waiver. It doesn't prevent anyone from sueing. That is my point. Anybody who can afford a lawyer can sue anybody else for anything.

Tom Bloomer, CF

[Mike Ferrara]

I lived in South Florida for 6 years. Logged about 1200 dives. Participated in two international human powered submarine races with the Florida Atlantic University scientific dive team. EVERY professional dive operator that I know has been sued at least one time. (That's about 20 law suits that I know about in a period of 6 years.) One of my dive budies (an Oceeanography Phd.) has testified as an expert witness in scores of cases. He testifies on behalf of dive operators. It amazes me that people think that the boat captain can be held responsible for someone having a heart attack while diving. Like they should give everybody a complete physical examination and an EKG before allowing them to get on the boat.

Law suits happen but I know lots of dive oporators who have never been sued. I was one of them. You have to look at some places other than Florida. LOL, Florida is a regular circus. There has to be law suits though. They sell diving to people who shouldn't dive, give them a wam-bam-thankyou-mam cert class and tell them that it's as safe as bowling for every one including the kids. There are far more incidents where there is no legal action than there is with. I know since I've been lucky enough to pull some of those folks out of the water, search for them and/or direct traffic for the ambulances. The part about it being dangerous is in the fine print of the release, medical form and safe diving practices statement of understanding. LOL it's a big joke and one of the many reasons that I'm so in love with certifications.

I haven't had to testify but I've been consulted (for lack of a better term). Dive oporators are just taxi drivers to me but the way divers are trained they expect (and need) a baby sitter. All too often they're just not trained to the point they can handle anything but the simplest dives without help...like a swimming pool maybe. In most cases I'd be a big help to a charter but in many cases involving an instructor and/or agency...I'd hang em high and use their own standards to do it.



Every commercial dive boat I have ever been on has required me to sign a liability waiver. It doesn't prevent anyone from sueing. That is my point. Anybody who can afford a lawyer can sue anybody else for anything.

Tom Bloomer, CF

You're right. Any one can sue anybody for anything but lots of cases have been tossed out in part or in total because of releases. They're not a magic pill that makes the problem go away but rather just a tool to help control it. A release puts in writting the fact that the person knew the risks and intended (and agreed) to accept the responsibility.

We live in a...I want it now...I don't want to work for it...but I want someone else to pay the price if it doesn't work out because it can't be my fault... society. Those kinds of people are little more than fresh fish food if they do much diving (I have some really good stories) and they have no business going near horses.

All that is a bit off track though. What concerns me is that we have to do business and I think it's to our advantage to have the client understand the nature of the risks. Having it in writting is even better. It could avoid trouble in the first place and help you get out of it otherwise. Famous last words "But nobody told me, WAAAAA".

[DogwoodFarm]

Although this thread has been dormant for some months, a couple of recent cases bring up similar issues.

In the first case, a stop payment was issued on a check to a farrier for more than $300 worth of work, because -- the owner alleged -- one of the horses was lame the day after it was shod. The farrier considered going to small claims court to obtain his payment. However, even if he wins, he will have lost at least half a day of income. Should he go to court, or hang a copy of the bad check on his office for his colleagues to see?

The second case involved a farrier who admitted to the owner at the time that he had quicked the horse. The owner had a vet look at the horse a few days later, and then had a second vet examine the horse about eight weeks later. The second vet treated a hoof problem, but was in doubt whether it was related to the trim. The owner is demanding $280 for vet bills, and threatens to go to court if the farrier does not settle. Is defending his reputation worth the risk of losing in court and the loss of income?

What is the best course of the individual farrier faced with these legal problems? Is there anything the industry can or should do?

[Rick Burten]

Should he go to court, or hang a copy of the bad check on his office for his colleagues to see?
Both.

The second case......... Is defending his reputation worth the risk of losing in court and the loss of income?
For me personally, YES!

What is the best course of the individual farrier faced with these legal problems? Is there anything the industry can or should do?
Consult a lawyer and let your conscience be your compass. The industry should and usually does, rally to the side of the farrier(though in a case where I was called to testify, it was on behalf of the plantiff not the defendant(farrier) and rightly so).

[Tom Stovall, CJF]

DogwoodFarm in gray

Although this thread has been dormant for some months, a couple of recent cases bring up similar issues.

In the first case, a stop payment was issued on a check to a farrier for more than $300 worth of work, because -- the owner alleged -- one of the horses was lame the day after it was shod. The farrier considered going to small claims court to obtain his payment. However, even if he wins, he will have lost at least half a day of income. Should he go to court, or hang a copy of the bad check on his office for his colleagues to see?

Here in Texas, stopping payment on a check to a farrier for professional services rendered can be considered theft of services - which means it's a criminal, not a civil, matter. For $300, I'd have a little visit with the local DA and let his office resolve the matter.

The second case involved a farrier who admitted to the owner at the time that he had quicked the horse. The owner had a vet look at the horse a few days later, and then had a second vet examine the horse about eight weeks later. The second vet treated a hoof problem, but was in doubt whether it was related to the trim. The owner is demanding $280 for vet bills, and threatens to go to court if the farrier does not settle. Is defending his reputation worth the risk of losing in court and the loss of income?

One's professional reputation is ALWAYS worth defending. There's little risk of the farrier's losing in court since eight weeks passed before the diagnosis and treatment of a hoof problem and vet treating the horse is in doubt about whether the horse's problems are related to the farrier.

[J.H. shoeing]

what Tom said.

[Phil Armitage]

Although this thread has been dormant for some months, a couple of recent cases bring up similar issues.

In the first case, a stop payment was issued on a check to a farrier for more than $300 worth of work, because -- the owner alleged -- one of the horses was lame the day after it was shod. The farrier considered going to small claims court to obtain his payment. However, even if he wins, he will have lost at least half a day of income. Should he go to court, or hang a copy of the bad check on his office for his colleagues to see?

The second case involved a farrier who admitted to the owner at the time that he had quicked the horse. The owner had a vet look at the horse a few days later, and then had a second vet examine the horse about eight weeks later. The second vet treated a hoof problem, but was in doubt whether it was related to the trim. The owner is demanding $280 for vet bills, and threatens to go to court if the farrier does not settle. Is defending his reputation worth the risk of losing in court and the loss of income?

What is the best course of the individual farrier faced with these legal problems? Is there anything the industry can or should do?

I consider the first case theft of services, however I bet there is much more to this story. I also think this is extremely rare and can be virtually avoided by being professional. When someone goes as far as takeing another person to court over something like the first case I bet there are other issues. Reminds me of a cop who has no evidence to nail you for the real crime, however the first time he spots you with a head light out your in trouble.

The second case pretty simple, I can see the owner feeling the farrier should pay the vet bill, afterall he did cause it. First of all admitting you quicked a horse is the right thing to do. Heck the horse can get seriously worse if it is hid from the owner. When I quick a horse I tell the owner and I have had horses go lame the next day, but we know why. Most of the time pulling the nail out and adding some iodine does the trick, however it is better to tell the owner what happened. No matter what the outcome of this case is, the farrier reputation will be in tacked, he is honest. If it happened to me, I would let the court decide after all the facts were on the table.

[tbloomer]

If I know I have quicked a horse, I immediately inform the owner and then make a followup call about 3 days later to check on how the horse is doing. If my quicking the horse was the result of the horse acting up whilst I was in the process of driving a nail . . . I will fight any litigation brought against me.

The last time I drove a hot nail, I refunded the cost of shoeing to the customer. The customer fired me over the incident. No sweat. Any horse owner who expects a farrier will never drive a hot nail is not someone what I would choose as a customer. If you are going to own horse with thin walls and soles and bad confirmation, don't expect your farrier to be a miricle worker . . . and don't complain about the cost of glue-on shoes EITHER!