Schelstraete Equine Law has successfully represented its client, a veterinary clinic, in a significant case on equine veterinary liability, resulting in two consecutive court rulings.
The client was represented throughout these proceedings by our attorneys-at-law, Luc Schelstraete and Vincent Zitman.
This case arose from a dispute between a horse owner and a veterinary practice following surgery performed on a horse. The central question was whether a binding verbal agreement had been reached at the admission of the horse — requiring the procedure to be performed exclusively as a standing operation under local anaesthesia — and whether the practice breached that agreement by switching to general anaesthesia (a lying operation) during the procedure.
Horse Owner’s Arguments: Alleged Verbal Agreement on Standing Operation
The horse owner (claimant) argued that the attending veterinarian verbally agreed to perform the operation as a standing procedure under local anaesthesia, and to make contact before any switch to general anaesthesia. The owner contended the practice honoured neither commitment, relying on testimony from the claimant and a witness, both of whom maintained the veterinarian had confirmed the standing arrangement during a conversation.
Veterinary Practice’s Defence: No Verbal Agreement, Clinical Urgency Justified Switch
The veterinary practice (defendant) denied any specific agreement had been reached, arguing that the nature of the intervention could only be determined once the procedure started. The practice further noted that immediately after the conversation, the horse owner signed the standard hospitalisation conditions, which contained a pre-authorisation clause for any additional treatments and express consent for general anaesthesia if required.
On the contact obligation, the practice argued that the horse began making unexpected head movements (a known effect of morphine), creating an unacceptable risk to vital structures. The transition to general anaesthesia was a matter of clinical urgency, with only a ten-to-fifteen minute induction window available.
Court Rules in Favour of Veterinary Practice
The court ruled in favour of the veterinary practice. The claimant’s claims were dismissed in their entirety. The court further upheld the defendant’s counterclaim and ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s litigation costs plus statutory interest in case of late payment.
Why the Court Dismissed the Verbal Agreement Claim
The court found that the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof required to demonstrate that the parties had reached a specific verbal agreement to perform the operation exclusively as a standing procedure.
Several considerations supported this conclusion:
- Credibility of testimony: The witnesses confirmed the horse owner had pushed for a standing operation, but the court drew a distinction between this preference and proving that the veterinarian had made an unequivocal commitment. The veterinarian’s testimony showed only that the possibility of general anaesthesia was discussed and acknowledged — not excluded.
- Inconsistency with the signed hospitalisation conditions: The horse owner signed the standard hospitalisation terms which pre-authorised additional treatments and general anaesthesia immediately after the conversation. The court found it implausible that such terms would have been accepted had a contrary verbal agreement just been concluded moments earlier.
- Witness testimony: The witness supported the horse owner’s account but introduced an unsupported detail regarding higher costs for a standing operation. The court gave the testimony limited weight given the family relationship between the witness and the horse owner and the witness’ financial interest in the horse.
- No corroborating evidence: Beyond the testimony of the claimant and the witness, no supporting evidence of the alleged verbal agreement was produced or identified.
The court also rejected the claim that there was an obligation to contact the horse owner. It was not satisfied the alleged verbal agreement included such a term and, in any event, held that the claimant had not demonstrated a realistic opportunity to make contact given the urgency of the induction process.
Because the claimant failed to prove the case in the main proceedings, the defendant’s counterclaim — which was conditional on the outcome of the main action — was awarded as a matter of course.
Legal Assistance in Veterinary Liability Disputes
Schelstraete Equine Law provides strategic legal advice and representation in veterinary liability matters within the equine industry. If you are facing a dispute, our team of specialized equine lawyers is ready to assist you with tailored, result-driven solutions that protect your business and reputation.
Contact our equine lawyers today.
What to know about Verbal Agreements in the Equine Sector
If you want to know more about verbal agreements in the equine sector, we recently published an article about this topic.
