Vet should have warned horse owner

Mr Glyn was Mrs McGarel-Groves' vet for her European dressage horse, valued at £350,000. The horse was French national champion and regularly competed for France.

The French dressage team sent its vet to England to treat the horse for a minor problem. Mrs McGarel-Groves asked Mr Glyn to attend to ensure the horse was treated properly.

The French team vet injected the horse with a lethal dose of cortiso-steroids, which eventually led to the horse being put down on humane grounds.

Mrs McGarel-Groves sued both vets, alleging she should have been warned of the risks associated with the treatment in this particular incident.

She also alleged there was a general duty to warn - both vets defended the claim.

After seven days of trial, the court decided there was a duty on the French vet to warn Mrs McGarel-Groves of the risks associated with the size of dose given.

It was also held Mr Glyn had a duty in this case to protect the horse against potentially harmful treatment. Since he had not established what the treatment was, Mr Glyn was also held liable.

COMMENT: After Chester v Afshar (2004) and White v Paul Davidson and Taylor (a firm) (2004), this has been the first opportunity for the court to consider veterinary negligence and if it is closer to clinical negligence or non-medical professional cases. The court also considered the question of the need for informed consent in such cases and if that would have been required in relation to this treatment. In fact, as the case relates to a specific and unusual set of circumstances, the court made its finding based entirely on the evidence before it. - Jason Nash, BLM Manchester

- These law reports are contributed by insurance law firm Berrymans Lace Mawer (http://www.blm-law.com)