On Jul 8, 8:51=A0am, Eileen Morgan <eg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> But this animal is not a found emergency . . . and the broker has been
> out, inspected the animal, and declined to pursue medical care further.
And yet didn't take the horse home with her. I think there could be
liability if a vet is not called. At this point it's an abandoned
animal problem, essentially.
> Well, what happens when we have different definitions of 'horse in
> need'? This is a slippery slope of rights and control of our own
property=
..
That's why the vet should decide what needs to be done.
> Giving medication, even a common one, sure is more than wrapping to stop
> emergency bleeding. Cold hosing and soaking, sure. Bute and an
> unauthorized vet visit when the horse's connections have declined? NOT
ok=
..
I don't know about this. If it's the broker's horse, then she should
have taken it home. If a boarder leaves a horse here who's hurting
and who won't get vet care, I can absolutely do what needs to be done,
and I'm insured to do that in case somebody tries to sue me over it.
At this point the broker left the horse there - what does that mean?
Whose horse is it really? It is in the care, custody and control of
either Caelen or the barn owner where it's at. There is insurance to
protect you from being in that very sitatution because you do often
have to make decisions for the animal without the input of the
owner.
cindi
|
