Hunters Can`t Blame Landowners, Missouri Supreme Court Says

GGReporter · 06-12-2008, 09:32 AM

When Missouri landowners give people free access to their land, they are immune to any suits filed over injuries or deaths on the property, the state Supreme Court decided Tuesday.

More...

troy2000 · 06-12-2008, 12:57 PM

The decision makes total sense on several levels. Although it would have been nice had the property owners advised each hunter the other one would be there, it isn't their fault a damn fool fired at the sound of a turkey, without even seeing what he was shooting at. That's basic common sense, on top of the legal issues and laws involved.

Lng Rng · 06-12-2008, 01:07 PM

Im fine with that. I don't think the State should be held responsible if an accident happens on public land, and the same standard should be applied to private land as well. I don't like hunting in close proximity to strangers anyways.

BaserRonin · 06-12-2008, 01:51 PM

I think Troy2k nailed it. Hunters responsibility to know his target.

Cyrano · 06-12-2008, 02:56 PM

I was brought up being told the first three rules of hunting are:

1. Always positively identify your target before shooting.

2. Always know where your shot will go if you should miss the target.

3. Never take a shot unless you are sure you can make it.

The responsibility for these three rules is always with the hunter and not with the landowner, be the land publicly owned or privately owned. Landowners cannot and should not be held responsible for the actions of those hunting on the land, including violating these three hunting safety rules. It seems to me the State Supreme Court ruled sensibly.

06-12-2008, 09:32 AM	#1
GGReporter Magazine Staff Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 718 Trader Rating: (0)	Hunters Can`t Blame Landowners, Missouri Supreme Court Says When Missouri landowners give people free access to their land, they are immune to any suits filed over injuries or deaths on the property, the state Supreme Court decided Tuesday. More...

06-12-2008, 12:57 PM	#2
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 9,109 Trader Rating: (0)	The decision makes total sense on several levels. Although it would have been nice had the property owners advised each hunter the other one would be there, it isn't their fault a damn fool fired at the sound of a turkey, without even seeing what he was shooting at. That's basic common sense, on top of the legal issues and laws involved. __________________ If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. -Anatole France

06-12-2008, 01:51 PM	#4
BaserRonin Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: In a Dark Cubicle Posts: 372 Trader Rating: (0)	I think Troy2k nailed it. Hunters responsibility to know his target. __________________ "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favour of vegetarianism" ~ R. W. Inge

06-12-2008, 01:07 PM	#3
Lng Rng Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 944 Trader Rating: (0)	Im fine with that. I don't think the State should be held responsible if an accident happens on public land, and the same standard should be applied to private land as well. I don't like hunting in close proximity to strangers anyways.

06-12-2008, 02:56 PM	#5
Cyrano Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: New York Posts: 1,962 Trader Rating: (0)	I was brought up being told the first three rules of hunting are: 1. Always positively identify your target before shooting. 2. Always know where your shot will go if you should miss the target. 3. Never take a shot unless you are sure you can make it. The responsibility for these three rules is always with the hunter and not with the landowner, be the land publicly owned or privately owned. Landowners cannot and should not be held responsible for the actions of those hunting on the land, including violating these three hunting safety rules. It seems to me the State Supreme Court ruled sensibly.