Attorney Fees for Negligence???

For decades in Texas a person making a negligence claim involving an injury to their horse did not dare make a claim for attorney fees.  Attorney fees have universally been held to be unrecoverable in negligence actions in Texas.  This would include claims against veterinarians, trainers, boarding facilities, show facilities, haulers - essentially anyone or any place that might have the care, custody and control of a horse.

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code contains an abscure provision in Chapter 38 left over from legislation from the 1800s that dealt with livestock killed or injured on railways.  The provisions found in Section 38.00, states:

 A person may recover reasonable attorney's fees from an individual or
corporation, in addition to the amount of a valid claim and costs,
if the claim is for:
                                     
(6)  killed or injured stock

Until recently, there was only one other attempt to invoke this provision in a negligence case having to do with an economic injury to a Quarter Horse colt.  That court summarily refused to apply the attorney fee provision.  However, in a recent Texas trial court, a judge has found that if the plaintiff prevails on a negligence theory involving her injured horse, he might be able to recover attorney fees (provided he meets the other requirements of Chapter 38. 

The case in which this interlocutory ruling was made involves a horse that suffered injuries while boarded. The horse's owner incurred nominal veterinary bills in tending to the injuries.  The horse recovered quickly and was shown within weeks.  The plaintiffs are suing the boarding facility for the injuries and claim more than 500 times their out of pocket damages in attorney fees.

Should these plaintiffs recover attorney fees and the ruling be upheld on appeal, the case would become precedent setting for plaintiffs to recover attorney fees while making a negligence claim.  Such precedent will open the proverbial floodgates for claims of veterinary malpractice, which are frequently not pursued because the cost of hiring a lawyer without ability to ultimately recover those fees greatly outweighs the benefit of recovering a few hundred or thousand dollars incurred when the vet injured a horse.  Similarly if a horse is injured while in training, at a show, at a boarding facility because of the negligence alone of the facility, a claim can be made and attorney fees recoverable.  Such a ruling makes lawsuits of this type much more attractive to a claimant and lawyer, where in the past the amount of actual damages would not warrant bring such a case.

My own research shows that the only "claim" involving killed or injured stock for which attorney fees may be sought is a statutory claim under the Texas Transportation Code.  It just seems logical that an attorney fee recovery statute would not differentiate among animals if the intent was to allow a person to recover attorney fees for negligence.  If a vet or kennel causes injury to a dog or cat why is that claimant barred from recovering attorney fees, but if the animal is "stock" - a cow, horse, mule, etc. - a person can make a claim for attorney fees? 

I am very curious to hear peoples opinions and thoughts about this matter and whether or not someone should attempt to have the Texas legislature revise Chapter 38.