Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Oh boy

Brit compo culture and lawyer's greed at it's very best....... ad a good example of why every safari company needs to have a good indemnity agreement.

And if the guide had shot the elephant and saved her ass before the elephant had attacked, she would have most likely still sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress in seeing the poor beast shot and killed. Lawyers.

The tree-huggers want an adrenalin high by being around "dangerous" animals so they can brag about the exploits.... but when the creatures turn out to be what they are known and advertised to be.... that is "dangerous".... the poor injured idiot thrill-seeker should be compensated?.... I think not.

You pays your nickel and you takes your chances,in my simple mind. One can take about all the risk out of a bungee jump or a roller coaster, but you just can't take the "dangerous" out of an elephant. Crap is going to happen.

Most eco-tourism is just anthropomorphism taken to a bizarre level. Animals don't think, they react.

Lemme guess..before the left, she said she was going to Africa to get a 'real taste' of what Africa is like. Then she got there, it tasted bitter, and now it's someone else's fault. I'd not only toss the case, I'd pull her ticket.

In that one picture they show of a group taking a walk in the bush; the lady in the rear just hasn't got proper foot attire. Typical tourist.

Some replies on that article.

Could someone tell me who the wild animal really is, the lawyer or the elephant?

-----------------------


Why are people who live in Monte Carlo trying to sue over something that happened in Africa in the British courts?


Due to popular demand,the warthog attacks are now on Mondays and Thursdays..No win No fee Guaranteed.



What a pair of idiot's his suing as well for having to watch but he's fine you couldn't make it up!!!

Elephants being elephants? If you don't want to see that, go to a zoo!

Maybe the best thing that could happen for all of us is the lawyer wins this ridiculous lawsuit.
The "Green Tourism" Bunny Huggers may suffer an unintended blow by injecting the reality associated with the unintended liability of their stupidity.
I wish this had happened in Botswana for that reason.
Their cost/liability might outweigh the gain.
300k is a lot of photo days of tourism

the name says it all... "Pratte"

"I know that Elephant have long trunks, but not sure about how deep their pockets are?"

Made me laugh...

Ski+3

The Judge hit it perfectly with his post.

Damn elephant didn't do its task well enough.

Amen!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:


-----------------------


Why are people who live in Monte Carlo trying to sue over something that happened in Africa in the British courts?

up!!!

If I had to guess, I would guess they are British citizens living in Monaco for tax reasons.

For those not familiar with British English her last name of Pratte says it all...

prat

noun
informal

noun: prat; plural noun: prats

1.
a person's buttocks.
2.
British
an incompetent, stupid, or foolish person; an idiot

Shame. What about her poor partner he has psychological injuries

this is simply elephants following their normal behavior - AND LAWYER'S FOLLOWING THEIRS! PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA INDEED..... proves Shakespeare was right.

I think that the assumption-of-risk doctrine applies doubly here. the lawyers assumed the risk of interacting with wildlife; and, the "high-end" operation catering to the rich assumed the risk of interacting with those sorts of lawyers.

it reminds me of the sharon stone and phil bronstein incident with the komodo dragon.

While I am usually a bit red necked on these sorts of things and would normally come out crying 'what crap' like many of the posters here have, in this case I can see some reasoning behind the decision to sue.

Most of us I would presume have been to zoos containing a range of dangerous animals and reptiles, at times many of the 'exhibits' not resident in our own country and therefore we (or the average zoo visitor, maybe not us as hunters) would not necessarily know how to react if we were faced with a dangerous situation. We all expect a duty of care from the zoo operators to ensure that we are not put in any danger during our visit, provided we also show care and don't do as some half wits have done on occasion and jumped into an enclosure or poke hands through cages.

Of course a little different for interaction in the outdoors but for a commercial operation for the general public such as safari tours, there must still be a duty of care. Not everyone is as knowledgeable or savvy about the outdoors and animals as the members on this forum or in a position to defend themselves. Obviously there are different degrees of danger with safari tours, some conducted solely from boats or vehicles while in the case of this lawyer lady, a foot safari. The operator does most definitely have a high duty of care and should be in a position to take out animals who threaten or are intent on attacking. If not willing to do this then this type of safaris should be banned, and then the dummies would be protected from their own ignorance.

As with any activity, if a duty of care has not been exercised then the recourse available under a countries law can be exercised.

Even as hunters we ourselves still expect a duty of care from operators and PH's but we are much more aware of and prepared for danger and in most cases waive our right to sue or seek redress if things don't go to plan, again though provided the PH hasn't done anything deliberately or stupidly negligent.

Unfortunately many countries have a culture or system where you have to sue to cover medical costs or other costs incurred due to injury. Fortunately here in NZ we do not sue for accident or injury as our no blame Accident Compensation system pays for medical costs, loss of earnings and long term disability costs (for life if required).
We have a native plant in our bush called "Lawyer", once you get hooked by that you struggle to get free

I would love to be the judge in this trial.

I would ask him to present the elephant that gored them to court.

quote:

The tree-huggers want an adrenalin high by being around "dangerous" animals so they can brag about the exploits.... but when the creatures turn out to be what they are known and advertised to be.... that is "dangerous".... the poor injured idiot thrill-seeker should be compensated?.... I think not.You pays your nickel and you takes your chances,in my simple mind. One can take about all the risk out of a bungee jump or a roller coaster, but you just can't take the "dangerous" out of an elephant. Crap is going to happen.Most eco-tourism is just anthropomorphism taken to a bizarre level. Animals don't think, they react.

I couldn't agree more Judge!

Hahahaha Saeed!

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

..We all expect a duty of care from the zoo operators to ensure that we are not put in any danger during our visit, provided we also show care and don't do as some half wits have done on occasion and jumped into an enclosure or poke hands through cages.

Of course a little different for interaction in the outdoors but for a commercial operation for the general public such as safari tours, there must still be a duty of care. .... The operator does most definitely have a high duty of care..

As with any activity, if a duty of care has not been exercised then the recourse available under a countries law can be exercised.

The safari staff do have a certain amount of responsibility for the safety of their often naive clients.
With the animals not being enclosed their responsibilities are indeed higher.
The court will determine if there was 'contributory negligence' by safari staff.
..or even some contributory negligence by the client themselves.

Negligently allowing ones walking safari clients to be attacked, is no different to a client negligently shooting their PH.
A person is responsible for their own personal or professional negligence.

As a comparison there is an interesting read in Jim Corbett's little book "Tree Tops" where the young Princess Elisabeth, now Queen of England, was approaching the Tree Tops lodge down a narrow jungle path to spend an afternoon and stay a night. Jim was waiting for the party at the lodge where just before the royal party arrived a large bull elephant had got himself worked up into a fury with two young hopefuls trying their chance with the bull's harem.

Jim was very concerned with the extremely dangerous situation that had developed but the party came on within yards of the bull and the elephant herd in the jungle next to the track and the young Elizabeth marched straight on ahead, handed her handbag and camera to Jim and climbed on up the stairs to Tree Tops without hesitation. Of course this little safari party which included Commander Parker and Edward Windley was escorted by accomplished guides if not aforementioned men, carrying doubles, and I'm sure those elephants would have been dropped quite expertly in their tracks had they shown any inkling of attacking. Just a different take on a similar situation as in this thread but of course quite different times when political correctness was unknown, except Jim shaved twice that day to look his best for the Royal visitors

What drivel.

Duty of care? How about a simple warning at the outset of the "nature walk" - for the benefit of the simple-minded tourists, such as this lawyer - stating clearly that, despite all of Walt Disney's cartoons, elephants can and will kill you.

If you still want to go, then it's a case of assumption of risk, plain and simple.

From what I have heard

The walking Guide did not even have a rifle during the walk

JK

Does anyone have a video of an elephant laughing ?

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
What drivel.

Duty of care? How about a simple warning at the outset of the "nature walk" - for the benefit of the simple-minded tourists, such as this lawyer - stating clearly that, despite all of Walt Disney's cartoons, elephants can and will kill you.

If you still want to go, then it's a case of assumption of risk, plain and simple.

What if the guide said there was no real risk? Would that change your feelings on the matter?

I think the lawyer is a narcissistic ass, but they can have rights too.

She should have gone to Disneyland in France instead

quote:

Originally posted by delloro:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
What drivel.

Duty of care? How about a simple warning at the outset of the "nature walk" - for the benefit of the simple-minded tourists, such as this lawyer - stating clearly that, despite all of Walt Disney's cartoons, elephants can and will kill you.

If you still want to go, then it's a case of assumption of risk, plain and simple.

What if the guide said there was no real risk? Would that change your feelings on the matter?

What if the guide said they were going to see Dumbo?

This is a question of personal responsibility, nothing else.

BTW, there is no way I would go on one of these so-called "nature walks" in elephant country - unless I had my .500 along and in my hands.

I guess that rules me out as an eco-tourist, right?

It is a question of personal responsibility, but more than that. The only thing bothering me about this is the possibility that the guide had no rifle. That may have been negligent.

Imagine that the guide knew that one or more of the elephants had been behaving aggressively, and that any guide in his right mind would have carried a rifle for protection, and the rifle would have prevented the tragedy, but the guide in question did not bring a gun. None of this was told to the clients. The clients were told there was little if any real danger, and they would not have gone if they had been informed.

In such a case, some liability should attach.

Now of course that is an unlikely set of facts, and if the lawyer loses its case, it should pay all costs and attorney fees. I guess we will have stay tuned.

Actually, every resort of this type have you sign a disclaimer the minute you arrive.

Isn't that what lawyers do? Sue??

George

I'd sue the Elephant for incompetence...

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I'd sue the Elephant for incompetence...

You beat me to it! Agree 100%!

"Nature walk" in Africa w/o rifle in hand = negligence.

quote:

Originally posted by jkhunter:

The walking Guide did not even have a rifle during the walk

If that is indeed true, who could rationally argue that the safari company was not negligent?

quote:

Duty of care? How about a simple warning at the outset of the "nature walk" - for the benefit of the simple-minded tourists, such as this lawyer - stating clearly that,
despite all of Walt Disney's cartoons, elephants can and will kill you.

If you still want to go, then it's a case of assumption of risk, plain and simple.

Theres a risk in flying to Africa also,
but if commercial operation airlines simply gave a warning that flying is a risk,
that still does not diminish their professional responsibility to the client.
They still have a reasonable 'duty of care' to ensure a safe flight.

Who would not sue an airline for professional negligence[resulting in serious injury or death] despite flying being a risk?,

Why should a commercial safari operator be exempt from such obligations & responsibilities to clients, when taking risks with elephants?

Like it or not, We are no longer in the wild colonial days of Africa where things were mostly unregulated and responsibilities were much diminished.

Clients going on nature walks in Africa do put themselves at risk, but are not primarily out to pursue and cheat death, like those people that choose
to hunt with say Mark Sullivan.

Sullivan himself has said even his armed clients can't shoot to save their own lives,
So in the case of unarmed clients on nature walks, who's responsibility is it to protect them?

if the guide did not carry a rifle he negligent point blank as much as I hate these situations .

I have seen guides getting careless. got close to lions and when the guide opened his 458 bolt there was not a bullet in sight . I nearly whacked him we were lucky