Since 1966, Pennsylvania has had a law - the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act - that is suppose to protect landowners from liabilities connected with allowing the public to use their peoperties without charge.
While her injuries were regrettable, this alone is why she shouldn't receive more than compensation for her medical bills. No matter how careful a shooter may be the chance of a round getting deflected
always exists, and the hunter was engaged in a perfectly legal activity at the time. The landowner should
never have been held liable in the first place. If this suit is allowed to proceed, and especially if she wins, it has the potential to effectively kill hunting in that state. Don't think that the ARFs aren't keenly watching it either, if it works they'll add it to their arsenal and use it in other states as a precedent to make their case to overturn similar laws in
your state.