More Problems For The Hunters
 

As if we didn't already haveenough problems, something like this will have a bearing on some hunters hunting lands availability.

www.tribune-democrat.com/outdoors.local_story_267001533.html

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

unable to view that page

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

As I think it warrants reading I'll copy the story. Story by Joe Gorden in Johnstown, Pa.

Public Access In Limbo
Not many people on this end of the state took notice of a Sept 8 court decision that found that a hunter and landowner responsible for injuries to a young woman who was hit by a stray bullet, but the implications of the ruling have already cost hunters access to private property in eastern counties.

The decision stems from a Nov. 20, 2004 incident in which Casey Kantner, 18 and pregnant, was struck in the head while sitting in a car in her Allentown driveway. The shot was traced to Craig Wetzel, who reportedly was hunting on a farm a half-mile away when he fired at a deer. Wetzel later pled guilty in the shootng and was ordered to pay $5,500- $3,175 in restitutions and the remainder in fines. His hunting license was suspended for five years.

Last year Kantner, now 20 and recovered, sued Wetzel and Daniel Haas, the owner of the land on which he was hunting. A lehigh County jury found Wetzel was 90% responsible for Kantner's injuriesand Haas 10% liable after Kantner's attorney had argued that Haas showed "complete disregard" for public safety by allowing hunting on his land.

Another jury will determine the dollar amount of compensation. But, it is expected that Wetzel will not be able to pay a substantial figure and, under current law, the burden would shift to Haas and his business. In that case, the landowner could be required to pay as much as 100% of the final figure.

It is that possibility that has caused some Lehigh County farmers to close their land to hunting this year, although ripples of the verdict don't seem to have reached this area.

Thomas Smithmyer, whose term as president of the Cambria County Farm Bureau ended Saturday night, said he was aware of the original hunting accident, but hadn't heard about the jury's verdict.

"It hasn't gotten to me yet," he said.

Smithmyer said the ruling hasn't affected the status of his potato farm.

"My ground is open for hunters," he said. "Its always has been."

Somerset County Farm Bureau President Nina Cogan did not return a telephone call seeking comment on the ruling.

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.

But, the jury's decision in this case poses a lot of questions about the validity of that law, which was not cited during the case by Haas' lawyer.

"We're watching it vey closely," said game commission press secretary Jerry Feaser. "But, it's not just hunting that is at risk here. It is all forms of outdoor recreation. You have the potential for landowners overreacting anc closing land to all forms of outdoor recreation."

Indeed, one could imagine the ruling also impacts access for risky activities such as rock climbing and whitewater boating. And what about landowners whose properties are home to such potentially injurious animals such as poisonous snakes and bears?

Some lawyers - including game commission board president Thomas Boop - have expressed opinions that the Recreation Use of Land and Water Aact will eventually vindicate Haas during the appeal process, others are not so sure.

But for the coming hunting seasons, at least, the state's landowners will be rolling the dice if they give permission to hunt.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

What has this world come to. I cant blieve that somone could win that case. Damn Democrats

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

What are you thinking with that?

BOTTOM LINE! When YOU discharge a firearm -YOU are responsible for the bullet.

IT DON'T GET ANY MORE SIMPLE THAN THAT.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

Did you even read the article?
Yes, I agree with you about if you fire the bullet, you are responsible for where it goes. But in this case, the LANDOWNER, who was NOT the one who fired the bullet, is being held responsible also.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

she shoulda spilled hot coffee in her lap at some point. this is a proven BS tactic to win lots of money by frivolous lawsuits.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

Unless it is overturned the landowner may be forced to pay around $700,000 to the woman. Landowners are going to be forced to buy hunters insurance on their land just to give anybody permission to hunt.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

If you take a shot and don't know where it may end up shame on you. If you shoot up a hill and don't know what is on the other side then maybe you should pass. Sorry to be a hard A$$ but when folks like this do stupid things it make real hunters look bad.[:@]

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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![:@]

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.

RE: More Problems For The Hunters
 

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.)