I agree ....

Also, I can't see how a bullet could get deflected AND HIT A woman in the head 1/2 mile away, if you are being responsible!!!

If you feel bad for theirresponsible hunter, I feel sorry for you.

The landowner should not be held responsible ... that is crazy![:@]

I agreethat the responsiblity totally falls on the hunter. I know this might start a fight and I dont want that but when it comes to rifles I have to wonder if they are necessary for deer hunting. the state where i live and hunt doesnt have a rifle season and thats because there are dangerous because they CAN and WILL go a long ways if handled foolishly.

Yes I read it completely. I don't see a valid point of arguement of landowner responsibility. The Land Use Act is very simple & clear. IMO a judge should not even waste time hearing this case. The Land Use Act has been argued before and held up. Case law.

Only time I have seen problems is when there is a doubt or question as to whether there has been a "charge" to access the land. Arguements have been made that doing chores, etc could be construed as a "charge".

Here in IL some are claiming that if a landowner allows Billy & Bobby to hunt the land w/o charge that then the landowner has to allow Donny & Dougaccess to the land also- the landowner can't pick and choose who. We'll see where this stuff goes.

Of course! I was shot in the head which caused me to spill my scalding hot McDonald's coffee on myself, causing burns. Furthermore; it was then discovered that there was a mouse head in the coffee which caused intestinal sickness and distress along with emotional pain and suffering for which I am still being treated to this day by a psycologist.

I am not so worried about the bullet wound as I have mostly healed and the guy who shot me really ain't got much dough. Our main focusis on McDonald's Corporation......................... BECAUSE THEY GOT DEEP POCKETS!

Please refer any questions to my lawyers Harvey Steinbeck & William "Bill" Ducker at thefirm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe.

lol, exactly my point! the only reason the land owner is getting drug threw this is because the hunter was probally some POOR (financially) guy trying to put food on his family's table. she wasn't satisfied with what little money she could get out of him, so her lawyer suggested sue'n the land owner. before it's done the rifle manufacturer will be named on the suit aswell. hell maybe even sue the government for designating a hunting season.

I don't have any problem with the landowner being held partially responsible for what happens when he/she allows people to shoot guns on his/her land.

The joint and several liability rule in effect in most states can lead to an unfair result though.

I guess the lesson here is that, if you're going to let some doofus shoot guns on your land, you had better check you liability insurance coverage.

It all comes down to greed. 20 years ago the lady would have healed up and moved on. Today everyones out to make a buck. Suck it up and move on. Not like he pointed the gun to her head. The bullet traveled half mile. Its a bad deal dont get me wrong, but that bullet probably was deflected and hither. With todayslawers they will get anybody to sue. (Not all Lawersbut most). This isbull#### the way that greed comes out in people.

I used to hunt Lehigh County in PA but don't live there any longer. IMHO much of eastern PA should be shotgun only, given all the new homes.

Hate to disillusion you but I'm a law student and we read cases that go back into the Middle Ages. Folks have been suing each other for hundreds of years.

Big difference though between now and the good old days is;

1- Nationwide TV news spreads what would have been local news all over the country.

2- People will post news on the internet making it available for people who didn't see it on TV.

The theory behind joint and several liability by the way, is that it is preferable that the victim becompensated even it it puts more of the burden on a joint tortfeasor who is able to pay.

Another point to keep in mind please. It is the JURY that awards the damages, not the lawyers and not the judge. Although a judge can reduce a damage award that he/she believes is excessive. (Can also increase it, but that almost never happens.)