Oh, good thought. I had not thought of it that way but now reading it with that in mind I can totally see it as barn owner’s mom. Though the barn owner is described as an elderly lady.
I read it as horse owner’s mom given that it was stated that the property owner is a neighbor of the horse owner’s parents.
1 Like
Ethically and professionally, though, at minimum I think he should have conveyed the information to the owner. He seemed to act in a manner to suggest he knew what he was doing in the eyes of the observers–bandaging the leg and turning the horse out.
Of course, the other two people, even with no knowledge, should have said something as well, but FWIW, he’s the service provider with the most knowledge, and a preexisting relationship with a client.
I mean, I’ve been with a horse being shod by a farrier (horse’s trainer nearby), the farrier discovered an unexpected issue with said horse (which required treatment), and he then gave instructions to be conveyed to the owner about how the proceed. Not everything goes as planned when a horse is shod, and the farrier running out the door without saying, “call [Horse Owner Name] and see what she wants to do” seems like fairly basic communication.
Again, I’m speaking ethically. Legally…I’ll leave that to those with more knowledge of “assumption of risk” and liability law.
6 Likes
Yes, it would have been better if ferrier hadn’t taken the role of training first off, and treating/assessing second off. Given the level of expertise this person has as a horse trainer, I can understand how the HO trusted his assessment that the horse just needed a wrap. Mom did call HO, but just described the injury as a cut that was now dealt with. HO, in hind sight, should have asked more questions, but she trusted the farrier. Hoping he helps with the bill. Hoping the horse survives/is eventually sound. I think mom was just there to keep PO company and to pay the farrier.
I think it is struggle for some people to know if they are reacting rationally, or over reacting. I think mom thought she was over reacting to the situation and felt really badly when she realized she was actually under reacting. Sad situation.
5 Likes
Exactly!
Wait, I missed that in the original scenario or that wasn’t included. If the owner knew about the injury and how it happened from her non-horsey mother, and never asked for photos or more details, there’s no way the farrier (or anyone) would be found liable. Two eyewitnesses on the scene thought the injury was just a cut, and given the horse was turned out afterward, the farrier could just say “who knows how the horse made it worse after turnout.”
I don’t think there was a legal case regardless but it was just a chain of bad decisions your friend will have to pay for–I personally would still get a new farrier after this, though.
1 Like
Unless my vet had seen and treated the injury, there’s no way I wouldn’t have unwrapped the horse to look at it myself. I also wouldn’t turn a horse out in a wrap for several days (and I’d be pretty concerned about trusting my farrier’s or anyone I’d never seen bandage’s wrap job to not cause a worse problem.) I think there were a lot of really unwise decisions made by everyone involved. I’d probably change farriers and strongly consider moving the horse somewhere else where the farm owner was more knowledgeable and/or proactive. But ultimately the buck stops with the owner and her poorly trained/supervised horse.
14 Likes
Yes.
8 Likes
The farrier probably thought he was going above and beyond by wrapping the dang leg.
No doubt this is a shit situation and jingles for the horse’s recovery.
4 Likes
How’s the horse doing?
1 Like
Thank you for asking. She sent pictures yesterday. Still a gaping hole of about 1 inch square that shows her ligaments etc, with raw tissue surrounding for another couple inches. There is also a tube looking thing exposed - I assume a tendon? It’s both disgusting and interesting.
Lots of swelling unfortunately, but no smell. I think the vet is back out next week to reassess. Vet seemed to think the pictures looked good - my brain can’t understand the gaping hole and the visible structures within.
Fortunately horse is being a good patient.
9 Likes
What you are describing is called second intention healing. This is not uncommon in lower leg injury where the skin is lost and there is nothing to close with. Takes a while but usually these do fine
3 Likes
I agree never to use this farrier again. Not knowing him, a number of images go through my brain when he was described as correcting the horse. I think we all know that in a shoeing sitch that means the horse will be backing up, and if one knows anything about horses, having a hoof holder or anything else that has the potential to injure them should be moved. I feel for farriers when they have to deal with salty horses, but this just shouldn’t have happened. But I think one has to chalk it up to an awful life lesson.
5 Likes
Farrier 100% should have just left the horse untrimmed until the HO could be there or deal with the situation.
And the owner isn’t just dealing with vet bills- she’s dealing with the prospect of feeding and keeping unrideable horse for the next 10 years, if the horse even survives. That area gets crappy circulation and it’s going to take FOREVER to heal, if it even does.
I think this is a situation where you would have a conversation with the farrier along the lines of WTF happened and how did you not think this required a vet? And that he should have just left the horse. Hopefully, farrier will respond with Gee, I didn’t realize it was that bad, and is super apologetic, offers to pay some of the vet bills. Somehow I doubt it, but still. I would NEVER use him again.
6 Likes
On legal liability, I would always suggest contacting an attorney, ideally specializing in equine law, and pay for a consultation and ask. That way, whether you pursue it or not, you know the ins and outs of what might happen. What people on a horse bulletin board think may or may not reflect the liability laws that pertain to the situation.
I feel terrible for the horse and the owner in this situation. We all make assumptions based on our own experiences. The farrier I’ve used for years seems to prefer it if I’m NOT there. 
I don’t think he hates me - I think he just doesn’t like coordinating with clients about the schedule and interacting with clients slows him down a bit. Most of the farriers I’ve seen tend to be kind of on their own schedule - maybe he’s coming on Tuesday, but then gets busy and decides to fit the horse in Saturday instead, or maybe next Tuesday. I have used two myself, just depending on where I’m boarding, and neither has ever expressed any interest in me coming to hold the horse.
I would definitely look for a different farrier. I can’t imagine my farriers wrapping up a wound in the first place. That would cover up the wound, but I do feel like my farrier would know more about a wound than I would. I don’t know that I would necessarily immediately unwrap it to check it if he said to wait a day or two. It would have been nice if he’d just texted the horse owner a photo or told the owner or her mother that it would probably be best to get a vet to take a look before he wrapped it. I know my (non-horsey) mother would not suggest calling a vet if the farrier just said to check it in a day or two.
6 Likes
I think if farrier needs and requires a handler present he needs to say so, and not trim the horse until one is present.
His handling the job of trimming without a handler to me suggests he accepted that situation.
So in that sense the injury is his responsibility.
Then he bandaged, with out cleaning the wound and turned the horse out? No thanks.
Either way, I doubt he’ll pay up, but I sure wouldn’t use him again. Ignoring an injury like that, no matter how it happened, is not acceptable to me. At very least he could have called horse owner to tell her horse got hurt and needed attention. And yes, horse needed attention from vet. Anyone but a vet who says it doesn’t is worth what you pay for their assessment.
6 Likes
@Casey09 trying to formulate a plan that doesn’t require a lawyer. She just wants some compensation for the vet bills - in particular the after hours fees because of the delay. (We also want to avoid social media shaming.) We assume he has liability insurance because he has a barn/horse business - but no proof of insurance or knowledge of who he would be insured with.
I dont believe that either the policy holder or the injured party can access funds from liability insurance without a lawsuit where a chunk of the awarded cash goes to a lawyer.
The only exceptions are auto insurance and homeowners insurance for routine repairs. For liability and personal injury they still require a court case.
So the farrier can’t just say, hey I’ll take $2000 out of my insurance and pay you. He would need to take that out of his bank account. He can’t instruct his insurance company to pay you. You have to sue him. If lawyer expected a million dollar claim they might take it on spec and get half in fees if it dragged on long enough.
No lawyer will advise suing over a small amount of money.
No farrier will pay up from his own pockets because that’s an admission of guilt. Plus most are not super well off.
3 Likes
I’m not sure how insurance law might work in this particular case, but it’s possible that the client would not need to sue. It’s possible that the client would have to file a claim, but then they’d have to provide evidence of the injury and of the farrier’s fault for the injury. The farrier, even if he does have such insurance, might prefer to simply pay rather than go through the insurance company because of the hassle involved and because it might cause an increase in his premiums. [Edited to add: I’m not a lawyer.]
But that’s all assuming that he has insurance that covers this kind of thing.
I think the OP mentioned that the farrier had worked on the horse before and had worked without the horse owner’s presence before. If either or both of those are true, once he began to work on the horse, he assumed some responsibility for the horse’s well-being.
Again, I’m not necessarily stating that he is 100% at fault for the initial injury, but he does bear a lot of fault for what subsequently happened when he left without telling the BO and mother to call a vet.
1 Like
I think the actions of the owner’s mother and the property owner, even if they aren’t experienced horse people, will make it difficult to prove negligence. They were effectively acting as the owner’s representative, and informed her that the cut wasn’t that bad. So you have all three people minimizing the injury at the time, then turning the horse out. None of them looked over the horse properly, but none of them are vets.
The setup/upkeep of equipment might be a factor, if it wasn’t up to standard. But again, this is all tough to prove.
If your friend has a lawyer with some knowledge of negligence cases who can advise her, that would be ideal. I don’t know if small claims court is an option. Nothing about this guy’s behavior suggests he’s going to help her out with a couple of bucks, though, everything he did screams wanting to avoid liability at all costs (and perhaps acting out of anger because he was in a hurry).
8 Likes
