This didn't happen but I wanted to bring a hypothetical situation to the board to see what the general consensus was.

Suppose a landowner leases out their place for deer season. They are also acting as the guide and directing activity on the lease. For whatever reason they put two hunters in two blinds 100 yards away where both blinds can see each other. The feeders are not between the blinds.

A trophy buck runs in and stops directly in between the blinds. A good marksman would be able to make the shot and not hit the other blind. The landowner/guide tells his leasee if he wants he can take the shot. The shot misses and hits the other blind, striking the other leasee in the leg.

However, prior to the hunt, both hunters signed liability waivers that clearly state the landowner is released of liability without limit for both negligence and gross negligence for injury or death sustained on the property related to hunting.

The case goes to court. What happens?

And it is understood that you may or may not be a lawyer, but you are not my lawyer or anyone else's lawyer in this case and what you say does not constitute legal advise and we do not have attorney client privilege.

The guide/landowner should be the one worried about getting shot in that scenario and not necessarily while in the deer blind.

I'd think you'd be begging for a lawsuit in this situation. Negligence galore, but since you're the 'guide' and landowner, I'd imagine you have the most liability.

How does the liability form factor in to this, assuming it satisfies all requirements of the "fair notice" test and expressly mentions negligence and gross negligence? Can the landowner still be found liable?

Hypothetically. Again, this didn't happen.

Landowner would be absolutely at least somewhat on the hook here but I don't have the contracts or waivers to review. Either way, this is why we don't even get involved in outsiders hunting our ranch. You can look at the pretty bucks from the gate.

A decent attorney could prove the negligence I think.

Liability releases have been shown time and time again to be worth less than the time and paper and ink it takes to sign them. Expressed or not the landowner/guide in this case is likely screwed. He knowingly told someone to shoot in a direction that was towards another person. Stupid is as stupid does and guide absolutely loses this one, no question. And since guide and landowner is one in the same looks like a hunter just got a new hunting plot without need to lease.

Send pic of hole in the blind!

Imagine if it was two ground blinds with a deer in the middle LOL

Always have as backup to any indemnity or 'release' from others your OWN Personal/General Liability policy and make sure you disclose to the insurer that you lease out your place for hunting.

Then, roll the cost of that insurance protection into whatever you charge your hunters.

I pay liability insurance premiums so that I don't have to worry about whether indemnities or releases will hold. You pay the insurance company to have that headache, plus they keep damn good insurance defense attorneys working for them day in and day out.

If your insurer requires indemnities or releases ask them for their preferred form and use that. Sleep at night.

Once the negligence part is shown, which is simple here, all disclaimers, waivers, etc are out the window. They are of no protection.

I can't answer the question, but wanted to bring up a troubling statement.

texAZtea said:

---

A good marksman would be able to make the shot and not hit the other blind.

---

If there's ANY chance that it's POSSIBLE to shoot in the direction of another person, you don't take the shot….

There is no such thing as "release of liability without limit for both negligence and gross negligence". A sky diving place can still be sued for negligence regardless of what forms were signed. Professor Swim at A&M first taught me that.

Take it to the lawyer board...

If I am a juror the landowner/guide is cleared because I am putting it on the shooter. But i doubt I would make it on the panel in the first place with this attitude.

Basic gun safety don't shoot without a clear background etc.

I would sue both the landowner and hunter. Both knew that the other hunter was in the direct line of fire and still chose to take the shot. If that's not negligent, I don't know what is.

Unemployed said:

---

I would sue both the landowner and hunter. Both knew that the other hunter was in the direct line of fire and still chose to take the shot. If that's not negligent, I don't know what is.

---

I would be willing to bet that the hunter/ shooter does not have any insurance policy that would cover him in that scenario.

Why in the world would you (the guide) even encourage much less let the shooter to "take the shot"? Man, that's just a basic "no go". Even considering this scenario would make me never want to be on a lease where this guide is working.

Quote:

---

acting as the guide and directing activity on the lease.

---

Sounds like he's a professional hunting guide.

I asked my insurance agent a hunting liability insurance question. He said guests could hunt or fish & my liability coverage would protect us.

I would need a separate policy $$$ if I took payment.

Animal Eight 84 said:

---

I asked my insurance agent a hunting liability insurance question. He said guests could hunt or fish & my liability coverage would protect us.

I would need a separate policy $$$ if I took payment.

---

But in the original scenario I bet the shooter isn't protected under your policy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have had an additional thought on this scenario. If the shooter is even willing to consider taking a shot like that knowing there is a body in the direct line of fire in another blind, you have to question their firearm acumen and therefore whether or not they are a marksman of any kind. Much less a "good marksman that could make the shot..." a mute point in my mind. A good marksman would not even consider that shot. The shooter is likely looking at criminal charges, as would be the guide, on top of the civil loss they both would face. Shooter probably has less to lose, but again guide also being land owner will likely be neither by the end of it.

Texarkanaag69 said:

---

Animal Eight 84 said:

---

I asked my insurance agent a hunting liability insurance question. He said guests could hunt or fish & my liability coverage would protect us.

I would need a separate policy $$$ if I took payment.

---

But in the original scenario I bet the shooter isn't protected under your policy. Correct me if I'm wrong.

---

I believe Y'all are both correct. The insurance policy is going to cover stuff like "the shooter got out of his truck at night and tripped on a limb and broke his leg". It's not going to cover "the insured told the shooter to shoot toward the other blind if it's a nice enough buck." In the case of this thread, there will be a couple of lawsuits going on in my opinion. Accidents are one thing, but this whole thread deals with gross negligence and that's a different animal. Even in my first example, if the the guy trips on a limb and breaks his leg and then has a text from you about needing to trim the rotten limb from that tree, well, you're screwed again. Now he got injured from something you knew was dangerous.

This is why we have attorneys though, and while i dislike them, they are necessary to our legal system.

This is also why you can't get access to someone's ranch to fish if you're a nice guy and bring a case of beer and a good story like you could in the 80's. It's not that kind of world anymore.

Tons of misinformation and bad pseudo-lawyering in this thread. A liability waiver that is properly drafted is absolutely enforceable in Texas to preclude negligence claims and even gross negligence claims. As long as there is no intentional malfeasance going on, a good waiver should cover this situation. Doesn't mean you won't get sued, but it does mean you will very likely prevail if you do. There are also statutory protections in Texas for landowners who invite other people onto their property hunt, and even for commercial hunting operations to a limited extent.

&ct=g

To answer your hidden question in this hypothetical, you don't have enough land for two blinds, it's not worth the extra cash.

AtlAg05 said:

---

To answer your hidden question in this hypothetical, you don't have enough land for two blinds, it's not worth the extra cash.

---

The hidden question was something else entirely, but you are correct that it's not worth the extra cash.

For those saying that a liability waiver isn't enforceable, this article might be interesting:

Texas Case Offers Good Analysis of Enforceability of Liability Release

I would offer up the difference in the case at the link and the scenario described above are vast. In the linked case the woman appears to have been using the equipment etc as appropriate. In the scenario above the shooter was not taking appropriate actions and is absolutely liable for where his/her bullet goes and the guide/landowner expressly said take the shot. That to me would constitute the landowner as liable as well. Land owner/guide has a responsibility to direct the activities of those he is guiding in a safe manner and intentionally put the other hunter in harm's way by giving the go ahead to take the shot. Negligence, gross negligence, then criminal negligence, did the waiver say anything about criminal negligence?

Watchful Ag said:

---

&ct=g

---

I'm a trial lawyer. I've personal litigated and tried many cases involving liability waivers. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

But by all means, keep spreading demonstrably wrong legal advice on a public message board. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

ShouldastayedataTm said:

---

I would offer up the difference in the case at the link and the scenario described above are vast. In the linked case the woman appears to have been using the equipment etc as appropriate. In the scenario above the shooter was not taking appropriate actions and is absolutely liable for where his/her bullet goes and the guide/landowner expressly said take the shot. That to me would constitute the landowner as liable as well. Land owner/guide has a responsibility to direct the activities of those he is guiding in a safe manner and intentionally put the other hunter in harm's way by giving the go ahead to take the shot. Negligence, gross negligence, then criminal negligence, did the waiver say anything about criminal negligence?

---

A waiver for criminal negligence? You can't sue somebody for criminal negligence. It's a crime.

The fake lawyering on here is truly something to behold.

Ag_0112358132134 said:

---

Doesn't mean you won't get sued, but it does mean you will very likely prevail if you do. There are also statutory protections in Texas for landowners who invite other people onto their property hunt, and even for commercial hunting operations to a limited extent.

---

for sure every potential deep pocket (read: everyone with an insurance policy) is getting sued. If you're in a rural county with a Republican elected judge, it's mostly going away before trial. If you're in a county with a Democrat-elected judge, it may well be going to a jury and be followed by a lengthy appellate process.

If they didn't run it by Brad, Jerry, and Mitch then they're liable. Everyone knows that.

Would the shooter have any liability. He did not sign a waiver with the other hunter

Quote:

---

A liability waiver that is properly drafted is absolutely enforceable in Texas to preclude negligence claims and even gross negligence claims

---

From the linked article:

Quote:

---

There is currently a split among Texas appellate courts on this issue, some agreeing with Ms. Quiroz's position and disallowing waivers to release gross negligence claims and others taking the position of Jumpstreet and enforcing such waivers.

---

So, it doesn't appear to be as absolute a defense as you make it sound.

OP - not to derail, but I'm genuinely curious … would you be comfortable with a decent marksman taking the shot directly towards your blind?