60 SIDELINES NOVEMBER 2011
FOR HORSE PEOPLE • ABOUT HORSE PEOPLE
E
Q
U
I
N
E
L
A
W
What You Need To Know About Statute Of Limitations
By Lisa Hollister, Esq.
Countless times a year, I am contacted by someone who
has read my articles in
Sidelines
and decides that they need to
take legal action to correct some alleged wrong that occurred
years ago. The problem is, while there may indeed have been
a wrong that could have been corrected by litigation, if the
plaintiff waits too long to fle a lawsuit the statute of limitation
will bar any recovery. As a result, it is necessary for potential
plaintiffs to act quickly when an alleged wrong has occurred.
Welk v. Simpkins, No. 10-10337 (2010)
Facts
In 2004, Texas horse trainer Darren Simpkins trained a
cutting horse named Juan Bad Cat for California clients, Lynn
and Larry Welk. When the Welks placed this particular horse
in training with Darren Simpkins and his wife Kelly, Lynn Welk
instructed the Simpkins that any medical procedures to be
performed on this horse needed to be cleared with her or Dr.
Van Snow, the Welks’ veterinarian in California.
On June 10, 2005, Dr. Jeff Foland, a Texas veterinarian,
examined Juan Bad Cat and determined that the horse was
lame, and after receiving authorization from the Simpkins, the
veterinarian injected the horse’s right stife with a steroid and
a second injection on July 2, 2005. Neither Dr. Snow nor Lynn
Welk authorized either of the injections. On July 8, 2005, after
consulting with Dr. Snow, Dr. Foland performed an arthroscopic
procedure on the horse’s right stife which uncovered
permanent damage to the stife. The damage was so severe
that it made it impossible for
the horse to ever compete as a
cutting horse in the future thus
diminishing the horse’s value as
either a performance horse or a
sire.
Legal Actions taken by the
Welks
Based on the alleged failure
to receive approval for the
injections, a civil law suit was
fled on June 6, 2007 in the
Texas State Courts. A second
suit (the suit being reviewed
in this article) was fled on
August 5, 2009 in the United
States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. This
lawsuit raised four causes of
action: 1. breach of contract, 2.
negligence, 3. fraud and 4. breach of fduciary duty. The Simpkins
moved for summary judgment on the bases that the Texas statute of
limitations barred the Welks’ claims. (Statute of limitations is the time
period during which a plaintiff can bring a case against a defendant.
Each type of cause of action has a specifc statute of limitations.)
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleading party is able
to show that when all the evidence is looked at in favor of the non-
moving party, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
thus the moving party is entitled to a decision in their favor. The
Lisa Hollister is an attorney
practicing in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Questions for Ms. Hollister’s
column can be addressed to
twinbridgefarm@aol.com