Blass v Randall

A veterinary surgeon conducting a pre-purchase examination owes the client a duty to examine the horse with reasonable skill and care and to communicate clearly and comprehensibly the examination results, relevant known history, and their significance, having regard to the intended use known to the surgeon.

That information need not ordinarily be confirmed in writing if it has been communicated orally and understood. A written record is prudent evidence of compliance, but its absence does not itself constitute negligent performance. A pre-purchase certificate does not generally require the surgeon to add medical-history information which the form does not request merely because the purchaser might show it to insurers.

The claimant purchased a horse after the defendant veterinary surgeon conducted a pre-purchase examination and issued a standard certificate. The horse had previously undergone neurectomies, which affected its eligibility for certain dressage competitions and created issues concerning possible recurrent lameness.

The claimant alleged that the defendant had described the procedures inaccurately, failed to explain their significance, and negligently certified the horse as suitable for dressage. The defendant said that she had explained the procedures, their risks, and the relevant history, and had advised the claimant to lease the horse for six months before purchasing it. The central issues were factual credibility, the scope of the defendant’s professional duty, and whether the information had to be recorded on the certificate.

1. Liability and disposition. The claim was dismissed. The court accepted the defendant’s evidence that she had explained that the horse had undergone neurectomies, that lameness might recur, and that the claimant should consider leasing the horse before purchase. The claimant’s reliance on the certificate was also rejected because she had decided to proceed with the purchase before receiving it.
2. Professional duty. The basic duty of a veterinary surgeon conducting a pre-purchase examination is to carry it out with reasonable skill and care and to communicate clearly and comprehensibly the results, any relevant known history, and the significance of both, having regard to the intended use known to the surgeon.
3. Oral communication. There is no general legal requirement that relevant information or advice be communicated or confirmed in writing. Oral communication is sufficient where the information is clear, comprehensible, and appears to have been understood. Written confirmation is prudent, particularly where the information is complicated, because its absence may make proof of proper performance more difficult. It is not, however, a separate requirement of performance.
4. Certificate and insurance. The standard certificate did not require the inclusion of the horse’s medical history. A veterinary surgeon does not ordinarily owe insurers a duty to complete the certificate with information which the form does not require merely because a purchaser may later submit it to insurers. Any duty to an insurer in the relevant circumstances would extend to completing the certificate with proper skill and care, not to protecting insurers against undisclosed matters in the purchaser’s insurance proposal.
5. The court treated the British Equine Veterinary Association manual as guidance intended to raise awareness rather than as a statement of the legal standard applicable to every reasonably competent veterinary surgeon. The criticisms based on the manual therefore did not establish negligence.