Vet Who Carried Out A Pre-Purchase Examination Of A Horse Was Not Negligent In Failing To Make A Written Record

Blass v Randall [2008] EWHC 107 (QB)

The facts: D was a veterinary surgeon who had arranged for a

horse to undergo surgery to its legs. A year later, D carried

out a pre-purchase examination of the horse for C. D issued a

certificate which made no reference to the surgery or problems

with the horse's legs. After buying the horse, C sued D in

negligence.

D contended that she had told C verbally about the surgery.

C had a different recollection of the conversation, but the

main thrust of her case was that D had fallen below the

standard of an ordinarily competent veterinary surgeon by not

recording that information in the pre-purchase examination

certificate. C drew support for that view from a manual of the

British Equine Veterinary Association which was expressed to be

a "collection of personal views of experienced

practitioners intended primarily to raise awareness of the

issues and arguments involved in the current concept of the

pre-purchase examination."

The decision: The judge decided that the

basic obligations of a vet to the client are to conduct the

clinical examination of the horse with reasonable skill and

care and to communicate clearly and comprehensibly to the

client the results of the examination, any relevant history of

the horse of which the vet is aware, and the significance of

those results and that history, having regard to what the vet

knows about the intended use of the horse. As long as the

information is communicated clearly and comprehensibly to the

client, the judge saw no need for it to be communicated or

confirmed in writing.

The manual on which C relied did not purport to set out the

standards to be attained by any reasonably competent vet. It

sought to raise awareness and improve professional standards.

However the judge accepted that the best practice in any

profession will always be some distance in advance of the

standards of the ordinarily competent practitioner.

So the case turned on the old-fashioned judicial process of

deciding who was telling the truth about what D told C about

the horse's surgery. The judge preferred D's evidence,

so the claim failed.

Comment: Whilst this case turned on whose

evidence...