Henry v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 107 So. 3d 874

The Henrys owned Toolights Ruckus, purchased in 2006, with a training arrangement where the Davids paid training costs and the Henrys paid veterinary costs; profits were shared equally.
Shawn David, the trainer, took medical control over the horse's care and alleged ownership, while Sam David mainly supervised training when present.
Toolights Ruckus had a breathing problem (soft palate displacement) easily corrected by a strap muscle myectomy, and a hoof condition (white line disease) appeared earlier.
On April 7, 2008 Shawn David took Toolights Ruckus to Baronne Veterinary Clinic for the surgery without immediate Henrys’ approval.
Dr. Hill performed the myectomy under anesthesia; Toolights Ruckus died from anesthesia reaction the following day.
The Henrys sued Baronne Veterinary Clinic, Dr. Hill, and Zurich Insurance; trial court found no liability against them; Henrys appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there apparent authorization to perform surgery?	Henrys; Shawn David’s statements as owner justified consent.	Hill/Clinic relied on trainer’s representation and workflow; owners not required for routine care.	No liability; trial court upheld absence of unauthorized conduct.
Did ownership records negate or support consent?	Clinic records listed Henrys as owners; thus consent was lacking.	Ownership records are not controlling; apparent authority prevailed.	Apparent authority supported treatment; no breach proven.
Did the professional standards and veterinarian duties require more control by owners?	Defendants failed to meet veterinary/medical duty; owner consent was required.	Trainers commonly handle day-to-day veterinary care; no standard-of-care breach shown.	No breach of standard-of-care established; no negligence found.
Was there an adequate physician-patient relationship and informed consent causally tied to damages?	Lack of informed consent and misrepresentation caused damages.	No proof that Henrys would not have consented; causation not shown.	No causation established; damages not caused by conduct.

Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error standard governs trial-fact review)
Stobart v. State through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (conflicts in testimony defer to trial court’s inferences)
Lugenbuhl v. Dowling, 701 So.2d 447 (La. 1997) (informed-consent framework and standard of care)
LaCaze v. Collier, 434 So.2d 1039 (La. 1983) (causation and lack of informed consent analysis)
Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So.2d 398 (La. 1988) (causation and duty in consent cases)
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (informed consent standard and patient-autonomy)
Carter v. Louisiana State University, 520 So.2d 383 (La. 1988) (ownership/agency concepts in medical context)
Ladnier v. Norwood, 781 F.2d 490 (5th Cir. 1986) (agency/apparent authority under professional practice)