"Ready, Aim, Don't Fire:" Hunting Accident Settled for Policy Limits
Click here to view article this in our Firm Newsletter
Despite safety precautions taken by hunters, serious accidents still occur. These incidents often involve members of the same hunting party and result from the accidental discharge or unsafe handling of a firearm, or from the victim being out of sight. In some cases, the victim is mistaken for game. See, e.g., Dick Cheney.
Such a case was recently and successfully handled by Victor Bergman and Aaron Kroll of Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. On April 17, 2007, the plaintiff and the defendant were turkey hunting together on private land in Jefferson County, Kansas. Both were part of a three-man hunting party that had split off in a fan-like direction in order to cover territory out of the line of fire from the other hunters. Without notifying the other members of the party that he had left his position, the defendant positioned himself on a hill top near the center of the designated hunting area where the plaintiff was located. After hearing some rustling behind a group of bushes for approximately 15 seconds, defendant fired his shotgun at what he believed was a turkey.
What the defendant thought was a turkey, however, turned out to be the plaintiff, whose left side from his waist to his head was filled with close to one hundred lead pellets. As a result, the plaintiff sustained traumatic and permanent injuries. A lawsuit filed on behalf of the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent for violating hunting safety and game laws requiring the defendant to identify the intended target before discharging his firearm. Counsel for the defendant countered by claiming that the plaintiff was negligent for failing to wear blaze orange and in failing to call out to defendant during the hunt, even though neither is required under the Kansas hunting safety and game law regulations.
At the time of the incident, the plaintiff worked as a propane deliveryman and operated a cattle and farming business. The plaintiff returned to his propane delivery job with difficulty and continued his farming and cattle operation, making economic damages difficult to prove.
Plaintiff's counsel retained experts who testified at deposition that the plaintiff should no longer perform manual labor on his farming and cattle operation, and should be limited to light duty work. Given the nature of the plaintiff's injuries, the experts also testified that the plaintiff suffered a 30 to 40 percent reduction in his pre-injury wage earning capacity as a propane gas deliveryman. Furthermore, the plaintiff was at a high risk of sustaining severe future injury if he continued his farming and ranching.
After significant discovery was conducted by the parties, the case was settled for the policy limits of the defendant's insurer of $500,000.
