Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Stupid Jury

Hey Tom Selleck....it's called a "vet check!"

Tom Selleck wins $187k in lame horse dispute

A California jury has awarded Magnum P.I. star Tom Selleck $187,000 after he was duped into buying a lame horse.

Seller Dolores Cuenca was accused of selling Selleck a horse named Zorro with a medical condition without disclosing its history. Selleck paid $120,00 for the horse, which was intended for his 20-year old daughter to ride in competitions but the horse's medical condition made that impossible. The defense argued that Selleck should have checked the medical records himself, but the jury disagreed. The $187,000 award covers the cost of the horse plus boarding costs. That means $67,000 in board. Where was this horse staying? The Royal Penthouse Suite? A second trial will be held next week to determine punitive damages -- it is not known how much Mr. Selleck is seeking.

There is no word yet on whether Mr. Selleck will be offering refunds on all the lame movies people were duped into buying tickets for -- Perhaps Tom Selleck can use whatever punitive damages he receives to set up a college fund to support the children of anyone who actually bought tickets to see Christopher Columbus: The Discovery.

I think we all know, if you're thinking about buying a horse -- even if it isn't a $120,00 horse -- don't fall into the same trap Selleck fell into. Look at the horse's medical records, have it looked at by an unbiased veterinarian, and take your time.


Drillrider said...

WOW---This is disturbing that a jury would throw "logic" out the window due to Hollywood stardom. Of course, look at O.J. Simpson. I still think he was guilty as SIN!

Who, in their right mind, would pay $120,000 for a horse without a vet check?? I guess if you are a Hollywood celebrity, you are
exempt from the normal rules of all us working stiffs!!!!


Grey Horse Matters said...

Stupid jury is right. I don't think there has been one horse we've ever bought or been given without a vet check, except for the two Arabian rescues (there was no sense it at the time but they were checked once we got them home). It's just common sense to know what you'll be dealing with in the future. And by the way, if you're in the market for a 120 thousand dollar horse, shouldn't you have some basic knowledge about a horses moving parts and how they should look when they move. Buyer beware always holds true but never as much as when you're buying a horse.

Halt Near X said...

Selleck did to a prepurchase. See here: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/sell122908.htm

I think this is an excellent outcome, to be honest.

Basically, the jury has said it is not ok for a seller to knowingly sell a horse that is unsuitable for its intended purpose. And there may be some precedents for necessary disclosure of preexisting conditions/recent medical treatments.

A prepurchase exam is only a snapshot in time, and it appears that something happened during this exam that denied the Sellecks the information they needed to make an informed decision.

Should he have looked into previous veterinary records? How many sellers actually release full records? Isn't the point of the buyer paying for a prepurchase exam that you can't trust the seller's records anyway?

The punitive stage of the trial might go into the ridiculous, and I hope he's not awarded an outlandish sum, but I very happy to see this part of the trial come out the way it did.

Callie said...

OMG! Isn't there such a thing as "let the buyer beware"? That is ridiculous............just plain stupid!

Drillrider said...

Another thing I'd like to point out is that $67,000 in board fees were spent. Who's to say the horse didn't develop the lameness throughout the ownership of Mr. Selleck and his daughter?

I've known people that either sold, or leased out, their horses in "perfect" condition and the new owner ruined the horse. One stallion owner was leasing their horse and found their horse at an auction as a gelding and missing an EYE!!!

I would be curious what the lameness was and how they knew it was chronic when Mr. Selleck purchased the horse??

Adventures of a Horse Crazed Mind said...

LMAO...yah, where do we sign up for that ticket refund? lol

Fraud is fraud. If you KNOWINGLY hide a lameness issue I think you should be held liable... "knowingly" being key word.

jacksonsgrrl said...

Well...I agree and disagree...He may not have had the knowledge, etc. to know to get one, and I think it says quite a bit about being a responsible seller. BUT, and lets's be honest here. If that you were you or me with no big name to speak of, we would have gotten royally screwed. AND $67,000 extra? What, for his poor daughter's pain and suffering? I can't stand rich kids who are handed everything! I worked in a richie jumping barn when I was 16 where we had to tack and untack for the rich brats and you should have seen that! UGH. Yeah, I'd be Grand Prix to if it was all handed to me and all I had to do was ride everyday....:)
Jules! I have looked into Renegades and I really want those for J. Even if I have to order and pay alot. They are gonna be worth it and they are for the barefoot hoof. And since they are what my barefoot farrier recommends he will help with the fitting. I tried to find a distributor but no luck yet.
As to the fear issues, I have read everything Jane has out on her blogs, etc. and do employ some of that stuff with a lot of success. My newest idea is when I get a bit scared, no matter what, I will pretend that what is happening is EXACTLY what I want to be happening and just kind go, "Oh, OK." I certainly have the experience, so it amazing what the mind can do eh?

smellshorsey said...

This is a wild story. Selleck should get out of buying horses and just buy his daughter a trophy.

Drillrider said...

My problem with this story is that if it had been anyone BUT Tom Selleck, would the jury have awarded $187,000 refund??

I agree that selling anything (house, horse, car, dog) knowing there are problems is unethical, immoral and downright wrong, but "buyer beware" is standard in the real world of non-Hollywood.

T.A. Paxton said...

Wasn't there an emperors horse that lived in a golden palace and ate from a golden bowl?
Probably the jury has facts we don't about what went on. However they don't have all the facts about buying horses either. Possibly neither did Tom Selleck-though one would think he'd have met some horse experts to consult when filming some of those westerns. No doubt the jury got a nice education on how not to buy a horse!

Sarah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.