Grizzly hunter shot by guide, widow to sue

Having been an outfitter for over 30 years, the waiver only is as good as the paper it's written on, does not cover any negligence at all. However, in hunting there is an "assumed risk" that goes with the game. Not knowing all the details, I assume the guides performed "due diligence" in the charge, but the courts will take days to scrutinize a one minute affair!!
 
That's a good point, liability can't be avoided in cases involving gross negligence. Many examples of gross negligence are possible in these scenarios which of course need to be established. Say in a hypothetical situation where a load of buckshot was fired at an attacking Bear and a person in the way was hit due to the buckshot spread that would be an example of gross negligence because an inappropriate firearm for the situation was used.

Who to pin the blame on is the game.
 
Last edited:
Several things come to mind here.

1st off it is unfortunate but obviously problematic that the deceased cannot speak for themselves.
The deceased in this case may well be mortified that the guide is being harassed/sued etc....or vigorously support it...we will of course never know.

People sue civily because they can....it is a universally available process anyone can engage in to achieve compensation for perceived wrongdoing.....as well as one that has been perverted to the point of absurdity in its process/monetary gains and commonality.
It is a sad reality of where our society has strayed in it's conscience and behaviour in both applying blame elsewhere and abandoning personal accountability.

What is clear above anything else is the deceased entered into a situation of facing down a wounded carnivore in its natural habitat and solicited the assistance of armed humans in that regard.
Without having been there, or at minimum being privy to the details of the incident available....none of us are in a position to expound on the merits of the case much less judge it.
Was the deceased about to be mauled to death...inoperable or empty weapon...frozen in fear....physically or positionally disadvantaged...were some or any or all of the parties sober...did the deceased provide any direction at the time of the shots such as Help or other solicitation of rescue.....?????

I will say that I'm pretty sure if the deceased had been mauled to death by the animal in the presence of the guides while they stood by and did nothing for fear of friendly fire injury or other liability....they would SURELY have been sued..possibly even criminally pursued.
Friendly fire is always a hazard when armed humans are involved....and not just in the heat of battle or confrontation...in training/sport and leisure.

The friendly fire incidents are then dissected/examined and judged in great detail over long periods by various parties in a sanitized sterile environment with no pressures of the actual incident weighing on any of them.
The persons involved in an actual life or death struggle of course had mere seconds...poss less...to observe/calculate/react..or not to a situation that literally chemically/physiologically and mentally impairs oneself.

She's a stacked deck people......

Again...whenever I see this it makes me wince....it is a sign of the continued weaknening of the human condition....
 
It's just the adversarial nature of our legal system. One one side the widow can't pay the bills because of what happened and needs compensation so the court will assign liabilities and payments will be made accordingly. And the other side has an uphill battle to prove otherwise. It's a battle of wits between the 2 opposing legal teams.
 
Slamfire said:
It's just the adversarial nature of our legal system. One one side the widow can't pay the bills because of what happened and needs compensation so the court will assign liabilities and payments will be made accordingly. And the other side has an uphill battle to prove otherwise. It's a battle of wits between the 2 opposing legal teams.
Click to expand...

Except, we all suffer the cost, with rising insurance costs due to constant litigation, often exacerbated by ridiculous judicial rulings.
 
I am not sure ..................and maybe I am wrong but if one is paying a guide, wouldn't you expect the guide to keep you safe... The family isn't suing over a broken leg or such thing but getting shot by the individual that is suppose to keep him safe...

Anyway, I hope the guide doesn't suffer (mental health) too much (can't be easy on him)... Hopefully he has insurance so his monetary life doesn't get screwed too.
 
Seems the only reason the judge is letting this go ahead is the fact he never signed a new waiver. You'd think if the hunt is the same, the risks are the same, and the client would know what he's getting himself into.

I'm going to guess the widow gets nothing. But only time will tell...
 
Depends on the skills of the legal counsels involved. Apparently a new waiver not having been signed is a technicality but was enough for the claim to proceed - time is of the essence. Rather interesting duty of care, due diligence and negligence issues to be examined.
 
A grizzly with proper shot placement would not be alive the following day.He didn't sign up for ping pong when he shot the bear.He started the mess and the guides had to go deal with it.....For all we know the guy could have ran into the field of fire in a panic......Harold
 
Wonder if a hazard assessment was done or even a tail gate safety meeting before heading out? What was discussed and agreed upon? Was everyone involved in compliance? Lots of questions to be answered for sure. Wonder if outfitters need to abide by OH&S rules?
 
Last edited:
Absolutely a serious conversation would have preceded the search. They had all night. Would you follow up a wounded whitetail with three guns in close proximity and quick shooting expected all Willy nilly?
 
starvin said:
Absolutely a serious conversation would have preceded the search. They had all night. Would you follow up a wounded whitetail with three guns in close proximity and quick shooting expected all Willy nilly?
Click to expand...

You make a really good point. They had all night. No way this wasn't thoroughly discussed. It's probably the only thing they could think about for hours on end.
 
the thing everybody is missing here is that the two people driving the bus on the law suit...the wife & her lawyer... wouldn't have been in the camp to give their "expertise" as to how to alleviate any danger so that makes everyone that was there "dumber" than they are in their eyes.
 
The lawsuit is complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Hope they don't win anything in this disaster.

Told my hunting buddy, keep shoot'in if a bear is on me.
If I ketch a bullet, try harder next time.

They could of done nothing ............ how would this of played out?
Excuse?
Dint wish to hit the lad as the opportunities dint present themselves.
 
Hunt dangerous game, accept dangerous consequences. I dislike Grizzly follow ups, as guides we face a higher risk of being shot by a client than being mauled by the Grizzly. That risk can swing both ways when it gets interesting in Grizzly hunting. Mix nerves, thick brush, a fast and dangerous animal with multiple shooters and there is an accepted risk.
 
Ardent said:
Hunt dangerous game, accept dangerous consequences. I dislike Grizzly follow ups, as guides we face a higher risk of being shot by a client than being mauled by the Grizzly. That risk can swing both ways when it gets interesting in Grizzly hunting. Mix nerves, thick brush, a fast and dangerous animal with multiple shooters and there is an accepted risk.
Click to expand...

This of course applies to guide too. He needs to accept the consequences of his actions, which in this case are likely to be financial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom