A. A Court Will Likely Find A Reasonably Close Causal Connection Between Dr. Hou’s Conduct And Actual Injury Sustained By Ms. Perez’s Mare Because The Mare Experienced The Same Severe Reaction It Had Experienced The Previous Time It Was Administered That Brand Of Vaccine, Requiring The Mare To Be Treated For Several Months Costing Approximately $50,000
A cause of action for veterinary malpractice must prove not only that the defendant breached their duty by violating the standard of care, but also that the specific breach of the standard was the proximate cause of the animal’s injury. Proximate cause consists of both cause in fact and foreseeability. Cause in fact means that the defendant 's act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing …show more content…
Lovewell, the plaintiff horse owner left a filly with the defendant horse farm owners. On Saturday, the defendant called a veterinary clinic because the filly was sick. A veterinarian came and instructed the defendants to administer medication to the filly, however, a dispute existed as to the instructions given, and the defendants gave no medicine to the filly on Sunday. The following afternoon, the defendants called the clinic because the filly’s condition worsened. Another veterinarian told the defendants to bring the filly to the clinic because it sounded as though it was in serious condition, however, the filly died hours after arriving at the clinic. The veterinarians testified that the filly died from renal failure brought about by complications from endotoxemia, resulting from colitis. The veterinarians also testified that the defendant had given the filly a medication, Banamine, which can cause colitis and lead to renal problems. Such medication had not been prescribed by the veterinarians. Despite the veterinarian’s testimonies, they further stated that no act or omission of the defendants caused the filly’s death. However, the plaintiff testified that one of the veterinarians told him that the filly died because the defendants horse trailer was unavailable until the next day, and that if the filly had been brought to the clinic sooner it would not have died. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and defendants appealed contending that because plaintiff failed to present expert testimony, there was legally and factually insufficient evidence to establish the causation element of veterinary
A cause of action for veterinary malpractice must prove not only that the defendant breached their duty by violating the standard of care, but also that the specific breach of the standard was the proximate cause of the animal’s injury. Proximate cause consists of both cause in fact and foreseeability. Cause in fact means that the defendant 's act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing …show more content…
Lovewell, the plaintiff horse owner left a filly with the defendant horse farm owners. On Saturday, the defendant called a veterinary clinic because the filly was sick. A veterinarian came and instructed the defendants to administer medication to the filly, however, a dispute existed as to the instructions given, and the defendants gave no medicine to the filly on Sunday. The following afternoon, the defendants called the clinic because the filly’s condition worsened. Another veterinarian told the defendants to bring the filly to the clinic because it sounded as though it was in serious condition, however, the filly died hours after arriving at the clinic. The veterinarians testified that the filly died from renal failure brought about by complications from endotoxemia, resulting from colitis. The veterinarians also testified that the defendant had given the filly a medication, Banamine, which can cause colitis and lead to renal problems. Such medication had not been prescribed by the veterinarians. Despite the veterinarian’s testimonies, they further stated that no act or omission of the defendants caused the filly’s death. However, the plaintiff testified that one of the veterinarians told him that the filly died because the defendants horse trailer was unavailable until the next day, and that if the filly had been brought to the clinic sooner it would not have died. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and defendants appealed contending that because plaintiff failed to present expert testimony, there was legally and factually insufficient evidence to establish the causation element of veterinary