Short answer. Yes. When a veterinarian fails to discover or disclose a hidden defect in an animal — whether through ignorance of their profession or deliberate bad faith — the vet is personally liable for damages. This applies even when the defect was so concealed that expert knowledge alone could not normally be expected to find it.
What the law says
If the hidden defect of animals, even in case a professional inspection has been made, should be of such a nature that expert knowledge is not sufficient to discover it, the defect shall be considered as redhibitory. But if the veterinarian, through ignorance or bad faith should fail to discover or disclose it, he shall be liable for damages.
Civil Code, Article 1576 — Redhibitory Defect Undiscoverable by Experts. Read the full provision →
Redhibitory defects in animals — what they are
A redhibitory defect is a hidden flaw in an animal that is serious enough to make it unsuitable for the use it was sold for, or that reduces its usefulness to such an extent that the buyer would not have bought it — or would have paid much less — had the defect been known. Article 1576 deals with a particular class of these defects: those so difficult to detect that even a professional inspection cannot reliably find them. For these, the seller is still liable to the buyer (the defect is still considered redhibitory), but the veterinarian's role comes into focus separately.
When the vet becomes personally liable
The statute carves out veterinarian liability as a distinct matter. Even when the defect is conceded to be essentially undiscoverable by expert knowledge, if the vet failed to find or disclose it due to ignorance or bad faith, liability for damages attaches to the vet personally. Ignorance here means professional incompetence — failing to apply the level of skill and knowledge reasonably expected of a veterinarian. Bad faith means knowing about the defect and choosing not to disclose it, typically because of some benefit received from the seller or because disclosure would have disrupted the sale.
The distinction between undiscoverable and negligently missed
Article 1576 draws an implicit distinction. A defect that is genuinely beyond the reach of expert knowledge — even an ideal veterinarian with full equipment and diligence could not have found it — is still treated as a redhibitory defect affecting the seller's warranty to the buyer. The vet is not automatically liable in that case just because the defect was not found. The vet's personal liability arises only when the vet could have found or disclosed it but failed to do so because of ignorance of their field or because they were acting in bad faith. The buyer who seeks to hold the vet liable must show which of those two failures occurred.
Who you can pursue and for what
If you bought an animal that turned out to have a hidden defect, your primary claim for rescission or a price reduction typically runs against the seller. The veterinarian's liability under Article 1576 is a separate damages claim for the vet's own professional failure. These are not mutually exclusive — you may pursue both if the facts support it. Keep the veterinarian's written inspection report, any communications, and documentation of the defect and when it manifested. Whether the vet's failure was one of ignorance or bad faith is a question that depends heavily on what a competent inspection at that time would have revealed.