FILE PHOTO.

Image Credit: pexels.com/Tiana

A BC woman who spent $3,900 on a horse and got a full refund when it had to be euthanized a month later has tried to sue the seller for vet bills, transportation, and the cost of renting an excavator to bury the animal.

According to a July 14 BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision Heather McCullagh purchased the unnamed horse from Mira Warrington in August 2022 for $3,900.

However, one month later, the horse was found to have "penile sarcoids" – a tumour on its penis.

A vet said this carried a "poor prognosis without aggressive treatment" and the horse was euthanized.

The decision says Warrington was unaware the horse was ill but agreed to refund McCullagh the money she paid.

This is the second recent Civil Resolution Tribunal case about a horse dying shortly after being purchased.

Earlier this month, buyer Trudy Lancelyn tried and failed to sue after a horse she bought from Rebeka Kennedy had to be euthanized two days after she bought it.

In this case, McCullagh submitted a vet's report which found the horse had discharge coming from its penis.

"(The vet) examined the horse and found inflamed dermal masses on the glans and shaft of the horse’s penis," the decision says.

The horse was given antibiotics but was later found to have a tumour and was euthanized.

READ MORE: BC couple return pricy pooch over owie foot, then sue

Although she got a refund, McCullagh then sued for $3,350 to cover vets bills, transport costs, food and hoof trimming, and $250 for renting an excavator to bury the horse.

McCullagh argued Warrington misrepresented the horse’s health.

Warrington disputed the horse was sick before she sold it and filed photos in evidence.

"I find that the horse does not appear obviously ill in the pictures," the Tribunal said. "One photo includes a photo of the penile sheath. I find it appears free of any of the discharge."

But the Tribunal ruled that expert evidence, not photos, was needed.

However, a vet's report submitted by McCullagh was lacking.

"(The Vet) does not comment on whether it would have been apparent that the horse was ill in August 2022, before Mrs. McCullagh bought the horse," the Tribunal ruled. "Further, Dr. Stitt did not say how long it would take for the horse to develop its symptomatology or when it initially became ill."

McCullagh said she spoke to another veterinarian who said the horse likely had untreated tumours for six months, which would have been noticeable because it would have scabs on its legs from continuously rubbing the irritated area.

READ MORE: Flair Airlines blames 'glitch' but BC man sues and wins

"However, these submissions are not supported by any evidence from the other veterinarian," the Tribunal ruled. "They are about the central issue in this dispute, and there is no explanation for the lack of a statement from the other veterinarian."

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed McCullagh's claim saying it is unproven that Warrington knew the horse was sick.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.

News from © iNFOnews, 2023