property owner sued for faulty tree stand

A hunter fell 20 feet from a tree stand when it collapsed and has $100,000 in medical bills. His lawyer says the property owner gave him permission to use the tree stand to shoot as many coyotes as possible, hence property owner is responsible for injuries. Lawyer for property owner denies that he ever met the hunters.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/269283/hunter-falls-from-tree-sues-property-owner

Apparently in NH it is unwise to give permission, while if you don't you're immune.

The legal uncertainty is whether an agreement to "shoot all the coyotes you can" constitutes consideration under 212:34 III (b)

http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/recreate/nh_rec.htm

If not, the landowner is immune and the case is over. If so, the hunter still has to convince a jury that this agreement existed, and also that the landowner was negligent in some way. For example, the jury will have to be convinced that the hunter didn't build the blind himself.

The consideration question is an interesting one. On the face of it, a promise to shoot coyotes does look like an agreement to provide a valuable service in exchange for use of the land, but I can imagine some arguments that this was too vague to be binding. (Mental exercise to help decide whether a contract was formed: if the hunter didn't shoot any coyotes, would the landowner be legally entitled to demand that the hunter pay him the market value of the use of the land?)

According to the article, this claim seems rather thin. The landowner is an elderly man who hasn't hunted in years, says he never put up any treestand, and never met the plaintiff, much less gave him permission. On the day of the accident the plaintiff had been drinking.

If the above is accurate, I doubt the suit will get very far.

Appears that this might be a "he said/he said" case.

How is anyone to know who is telling the honest truth?

And of course the victim had only one beer which put him " at" or below the level for intoxication. That would be quite a variation and one beer does not place someone "at" the level of intoxication.

I think we have enough "reasonable doubt" to vote property owner "not guilty" in this case!

Will look forward to hearing how this evolves. Property rights or lack thereof are most interesting.

Unlike the usual, the comments on that article are fascinating and worth a read. I'm impressed someone went and actually did the request to determine the hunter in question had no hunting license for the time period in question, and there's some intelligent commentary on the law in question as well.

Side note: "Waltham Watch" is not me. I don't do news article comments.

I thought if you had permission to hunt on someones property you had to have it in writing and carried on your person during the hunt?

"at or below the level of intoxication"

What level of intoxication? He wasn't driving.

What is the legal level of intoxication for falling out of tree stands?

Rickie,
There is no requirement for such, but a small percentage of landowners do ask for it. It's usually to eliminate the encounter with a trespasser.
Trespasser: " I have permission to hunt"
Landowner: "Who gave you permission"
Trespasser: "The Landowner"
Landowner: "I'm the landowner and I've never met you before"

The variation is the hunter(or hiker) who has been given permission encountering the trespasser and asking the same questions.

It's not obvious to me that whether the hunter had a license would make any difference to the legal question of immunity or to questions of the landowner's negligance, but if the comment can be believed and the hunter in this case was unlicensed, it would certainly affect my estimate of the hunter's credibility in general.
Trial lawyers on each side may be strategizing right now about how to make sure that little nugget of information does or doesn't reach the ears of the jury.

edit: if the hunter wasn't licensed to shoot coyotes, does that make the alleged contract illegal and void? If so, does that mean there's no valid consideration for purposes of the shield law? OK, I'll stop now...

The new american lottery, sue! What is happening to individual responsibility?

I really feel bad for the land owner, besides the hassle of the suit he has a legal bill to pay off now also.

In NH, the courts have normally thrown out these cases fairly quickly, unfortunately the landowner has to spend money to defend themselves until it goes to trial. I dont see the case making it far in court, but then again its how much money the litigant is willing to pay the lawyer. Generally the courts set a high standard on what causes a landowner to lose immunity. It normally has to be a deliberate act on the landowners part.

One of the reasons I carry excess liability coverage!

Atleast the lawyers will make out..helping to establish a basis for more lawyers.

Wildlife with No Closed Season: A hunting license is required to hunt coyote, porcupine, red squirrel, woodchuck, European starling, feral pigeon, and English sparrow.


http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/hunting_rules.htm

The other unfortunate fallout from this is that other landowners who read about it will plaster every tree on their land with No Trespasing signs to try to head off the same thing happening to them.

peakbagger said:

unfortunately the landowner has to spend money to defend themselves until it goes to trial.

Click to expand...

The only way to eliminate these frivolous lawsuits is making the loser pay all legal costs of the defendant. The plaintiff has nothing to lose except the 33% the lawyer gets if they win.

Makes my day that the thread is not drifting into the usual anti-hunting, etc downdraft.

Peakbagr said:

Makes my day that the thread is not drifting into the usual anti-hunting, etc downdraft.

Click to expand...

Won't somebody think of the coyotes?!?!?!

SteveHiker said:

"at or below the level of intoxication"

What level of intoxication? He wasn't driving.

What is the legal level of intoxication for falling out of tree stands?

Click to expand...

Don't know the law in New Hampshire, but Hunting While Intoxicated is against the law in New York. Never arrested anyone for this, but I would presume that .08 or above would be presumptive evidence of intoxication as that is the level for all the other "... while intoxicated" laws in NYS (driving, snowmobiling and boating).

Bob said:

The only way to eliminate these frivolous lawsuits is making the loser pay all legal costs of the defendant. The plaintiff has nothing to lose except the 33% the lawyer gets if they win.

Click to expand...

Reason why so many settle out of court, it is cheaper to do so, even when it is frivolous, then the legal bill when you do fight it.

Puma concolor said:

Don't know the law in New Hampshire, but Hunting While Intoxicated is against the law in New York. Never arrested anyone for this, but I would presume that .08 or above would be presumptive evidence of intoxication as that is the level for all the other "... while intoxicated" laws in NYS (driving, snowmobiling and boating).

Click to expand...

I know in CT you can be arrested for hunting while under the influence. Interesting I can't fine a similar law in NH.

Live Free or Die Drunk Falling out of Treestand !