Going forward I am not going to sign any contracts with any outfitter that stipulates that I waive all liability from the outfitter as hunting is dangerous activity. This has been the standard clauses in contracts from Zimbabwe to Botswana to Burkina Faso.

If I waive all liability from the outfitter. I would also expect the outfitter to waive all liability from me.

Either we have liability to each other or we have no liability to each other.

The current contracts are all one way risk - I have liability to outfitter but the outfitter has no liability to me.

I for one am done with taking this one way risk.

I would never take open ended one way risk in my investing or professional activities why should I take it in my recreational activities.

Part of due diligence going forward is also to make sure the outfitter has appropriate insurance for all its employees/independent contractors.

Mike

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beretta682E:



I would never take open ended one way risk in my investing or professional activities why should I take it in my recreational activities.


If you invest in stocks in whatever form or land or gold or tulip bulbs, and you don't face one way risk, I need to hire you.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

Either we have liability to each other or we have no liability to each other.

Part of due diligence going forward is also to make sure the outfitter has appropriate insurance for all its employees/independent contractors.

The former you might be able to pull off, probably because the outfitter knows that his commitment to indemnify you for his acts of negligence is going to be darn near impossible for you to enforce in his country any way. The latter, I fear is the equivalent of saying that you are for all intent and purposes retiring from hunting in Africa.

It will be an interesting experiment. You should be able to save a lot of money on hunting trips. Please report back.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

Either we have liability to each other or we have no liability to each other.

Part of due diligence going forward is also to make sure the outfitter has appropriate insurance for all its employees/independent contractors.

The former you might be able to pull off, probably because the outfitter knows that giving you the release is going to be darn near impossible to enforce in his country any way. The latter, I fear is the equivalent of saying that you are for all intent and purposes retiring from hunting in Africa.

It will be an interesting experiment. You should be able to safe a lot of money on hunting trips. Please report back.

Either one works - either we both have no liability to each other. Or we have liability to each other in a crappy legal jurisdiction.

But what I don't want is liability just from me.

Best outcome is no one is willing to agree and I save a lot of money I will be spending over the next 20-25 hunting in Africa

I have never signed a hunting contract with any outfitter, except TGT.

And the only reason I did sign that contract, is because Alan Vincent was my PH.

The contract is so lopsided, if Alan was not employed by TGT and he was going to be my PH I would have gone somewhere else.

On some previous occasions, an outfitter has asked if I wanted a contract, and when I said no, he accepted that, and that was the end of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Either one works - either we both have no liability to each other. Or we have liability to each other in a crappy legal jurisdiction.

Not quite right. If he agrees to hold you harmless for his negligence, to enforce that commitment you are probably going to have to do that in his country (certainly to enforce any judgment). So you are right, a crappy legal jurisdiction. On the other hand, if you agree to hold him harmless for your negligence, that is likely to be enforced here. An occasionally crappy, but altogether better legal jurisdiction. So, your promise may actually mean something, his, not so much.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I have never signed a hunting contract with any outfitter, except TGT.

And GE and Exxon generally are able to contract on their terms too. It is the Golden Rule: Them With the Gold Rule. Try doing that on a single 10 day buffalo hunt booking.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Either one works - either we both have no liability to each other. Or we have liability to each other in a crappy legal jurisdiction.

Not quite right. If he agrees to hold you harmless for his negligence, to enforce that commitment you are probably going to have to do that in his country (certainly to enforce any judgment). So you are right, a crappy legal jurisdiction. On the other hand, if you agree to hold him harmless for your negligence, that is likely to be enforced here. An occasionally crappy, but altogether better legal jurisdiction. So, your promise may actually mean something, his, not so much.

But every hunting contract you are doing that anyway right now - giving the outfitter access to US jurisdiction. Tough standing but access.

I just don't like waiving all my rights cause "hunting is dangerous" when the outfitter/professional hunter keeps all his.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Either one works - either we both have no liability to each other. Or we have liability to each other in a crappy legal jurisdiction.

Not quite right. If he agrees to hold you harmless for his negligence, to enforce that commitment you are probably going to have to do that in his country (certainly to enforce any judgment). So you are right, a crappy legal jurisdiction. On the other hand, if you agree to hold him harmless for your negligence, that is likely to be enforced here. An occasionally crappy, but altogether better legal jurisdiction. So, your promise may actually mean something, his, not so much.

Alternatively Mike could this work.

A US hunter has $1 mil. in insurance. Assume buying insurance above $1 mil. is prohibitively expensive when ones hobbies are hunting dangerous game in africa.

Can you contract with the outfitter to limit your liability to the amount of insurance you have?

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Either one works - either we both have no liability to each other. Or we have liability to each other in a crappy legal jurisdiction.

Not quite right. If he agrees to hold you harmless for his negligence, to enforce that commitment you are probably going to have to do that in his country (certainly to enforce any judgment). So you are right, a crappy legal jurisdiction. On the other hand, if you agree to hold him harmless for your negligence, that is likely to be enforced here. An occasionally crappy, but altogether better legal jurisdiction. So, your promise may actually mean something, his, not so much.

Alternatively Mike could this work.

A US hunter has $1 mil. in insurance. Assume buying insurance above $1 mil. is prohibitively expensive when ones hobbies are hunting dangerous game in africa.

Can you contract with the outfitter to limit your liability to the amount of insurance you have?

Mike

Sure, and you could contract with mutual releases that say you are not liable to him for your negligence and he is not liable to you for his negligence. I was just pointing out that if there is an undertaking by both parties to protect the other for their respective negligence, your commitment to the PH is probably worth more than his commitment to you given where those commitments will have to be enforced in the courts.

Contracts can sometimes be negotiated. I strike through one-sided clauses and initial and send it back asking for his agreement. One agreed and sent it back. One had his attorney send me an amended agreement. Most just hunted me with no contract. Only one refused to hunt me at all.

Tom

Like I said, I do not think that the contractual issues will slow most outfitters down when the client is there check in hand -- the big boys might be the exception -- most will follow the money and agree to whatever. On the other hand, saying that you are not going to hunt with any outfitter in Africa that does not carry a decent sized general liability insurance policy to cover accidents while hunting, my guess is that you are going to find that very few have such policies.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
Either one works - either we both have no liability to each other. Or we have liability to each other in a crappy legal jurisdiction.

Not quite right. If he agrees to hold you harmless for his negligence, to enforce that commitment you are probably going to have to do that in his country (certainly to enforce any judgment). So you are right, a crappy legal jurisdiction. On the other hand, if you agree to hold him harmless for your negligence, that is likely to be enforced here. An occasionally crappy, but altogether better legal jurisdiction. So, your promise may actually mean something, his, not so much.

Alternatively Mike could this work.

A US hunter has $1 mil. in insurance. Assume buying insurance above $1 mil. is prohibitively expensive when ones hobbies are hunting dangerous game in africa.

Can you contract with the outfitter to limit your liability to the amount of insurance you have?

Mike

Sure, and you could contract with mutual releases that say you are not liable to him for your negligence and he is not liable to you for his negligence. I was just pointing out that if there is an undertaking by both parties to protect the other for their respective negligence, your commitment to the PH is probably worth more than his commitment to you given where those commitments will have to be enforced in the courts.

This might be the right approach. Given that all hunting activity in Africa is probably self insurance for the US hunter to any outfitter/ph liability.

Might make sense instead of just signing a blank liability check by hunter to limit it to an insurance account or a fixed dollar amount.

I still find the whole hunting contract clause that hunting is a dangerous activity and the outfitter is not liable but the hunter is liable to the professional hunter totally one sided.

Reputation, repeat business, relationships all do mitigate this totally one sided clause - but I don't see it as end of the world for an outfitter to limit liability claims to a insurance or pre-determined amount.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Like I said, I do not think that the contractual issues will slow most outfitters down when the client is there check in hand -- the big boys might be the exception -- most will follow the money and agree to whatever. On the other hand, saying that you are not going to hunt with any outfitter in Africa that does not carry a decent sized general liability insurance policy to cover accidents while hunting, my guess is that you are going to find that very few have such policies.

An outfitter who does not carry insurance to insure his employees/independent contractors and at the same time demands total waiver of liability from US hunter and also no limits hunter liability to a predetermined amount is someone I would not hunt with. Cause I think other than accident risk they are probably some other issues with his outfitter - he wants all things/issues totally one sided.

Getting general liability insurance for a hunting operation in a Moz, Zim is near impossible. Its not the type of risk and premium than anyone wants to deal with and for good reason.

Hunting is a dangerous activity so outfitter has no liable to hunter.

I have always worked under the assumption that hunting in africa is self insurance. One has no legal claims for actions. If things for the hunter go pear shaped - best to come home and get medical or other treatments. And you are responsible for your future earnings, healthcare ect. Dangerous game hunting is a dangerous activity.


Why should the hunter then keep open exposure to everyone? The hunter should upfront say that my liability is limited at x dollars. The x dollars hopefully being the insurance coverage of the individual. Also lets not make X dollars a trivial amount - but a real economic number.

I dont think sitting down will any outfitter if you lay out what rights one is waiving and what limits one wants on damages the default clause of everything in favor of the outfitter cannot be modified for a first time business relationship.

Also I don't think this issue is applicable to people/parties who have hunted together before. I think it will get waived or resolved in a few minutes.

But i do like this idea of saying lets contractually agree to limit damages caused by me to X amount and I will self insure (as I have always done) for all outfitter liabilities.

Comes down to the main thing I have learned on AR - choose your outfitter and PH very carefully - cause aside from the hunting and getting you around in a new country - you are self insuring yourself against any liabilities caused by this person to you.

Mike

Other than being a legal requirement in SA, IE no remuneration agreement = illegal hunt.

I like to put to paper all the finer details that gave been negotiated over a 1-2 yr period sometimes.

I put it all on paper then send to the prospective hunter to peruse if he is happy with the cost of animals or discounted price on whatever then he brings it along an we sign it together. We both get a copy.

If you hunted with me Saeed I wouldn't need a contract either

As for indemnity's , I kinda feel worried if a guy doesn't want to sign one ( never happened yet ) as it almost a prelude to " if this bugger scuffs his knees he's gonna want to sue"
What we do is dangerous. From all sides apparently.

So not sure what you getting at ~ refuse to sign anything an the PH an Outfitter is responsible for everything.

Good luck going hunting!

My approach is to hunt with friends who I would not sue and who I believe would not sue me AND, more importantly, to keep safe and not screw up.

I have to disagree with you. I refused to sign one in the Yukon. It was seriously overreaching . I would have had no recourse over anything including failure to provide the hunt and intentional acts.

I have been seriously hurt before on a hunt. I have never sued anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I have to disagree with you. I refused to sign one in the Yukon. It was seriously overreaching . I would have had no recourse over anything including failure to provide the hunt and intentional acts.

I have been seriously hurt before on a hunt. I have never sued anyone.

Larry good point to, I'm a hand shake kinda guy but have had to withhold trophy shipments because of non payment of extra animals.

I hunt with a ton of guys I've never met or who have been arranged by agents etc. I have a standard run of the mill one page indemnity.

All is fun till the S#<>t hits the fan then best buds become enemies , an the he said she said starts.

As an outfitter dealing with strangers who can I trust and who can't I ?

I think mine starts out with the " although everything will be done in our power ....etc etc"

It's a real tough one, being essentially in the hospitality game first and the hunting game second.

If you where in our shoes what would your company do ? Think seriously on it.think not only of wounded animal charges, snake bites, injuries while walking , climbing, driving on crap roads, slippery roads in the rains, tick fevers, loaned rifles .....

Dave:

I think an indemnity is fine as long as it isn't overreaching. When they become so broad that there is no recourse for ANYTHING, I have a problem.

Off the top of my head, I can think of the following things that happened to me:

1- Bitten By horse, surgery required.

2- Bitten by spider. I was seriously ill.

3- Fell on ice splitting my hand open and cracking rifle stock.

4- Drank water from a water system that had multiple dead monkeys in it. I was seriously ill.

5- Horses wrecked gear including totally ruining a satellite phone.

Personally, I never considered legal action although there probably was negligence in item #1 above.

Where I start to have an issue is when every possible act is covered by the agreement. Items such as:

The hunt was never conducted.

The PH stayed drunk the entire time making the hunt a waste of time.

Intentional acts.

It is a difficult matter. No doubt.

I have a current argument with the PH/outfitter on my last hunt. I owe him more money than he is claiming. I'm basing it on our deal -- some of which is in writing. He thinks I didn't make a good deal in retrospect, and wants to re-trade the deal to my advantage. I disagree.

But that's the kind of disputes you get into when you deal with friends.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I have a current argument with the PH/outfitter on my last hunt. I owe him more money than he is claiming. I'm basing it on our deal -- some of which is in writing. He thinks I didn't make a good deal in retrospect, and wants to re-trade the deal to my advantage. I disagree.

But that's the kind of disputes you get into when you deal with friends.

I have had the same situation. I booked a hunt. The price was $x. Subsequently, the price dropped when the economy tanked. The outfitter wanted to drop the price. I was adamant that this was not acceptable. I also made it clear that a price increase was not acceptable after we made our agreement.

A deal is a deal! We entered into an agreement that involved a bonus/charge/etc. if we took an elephant in addition to leopard and buffalo. Last day, last light, we did. He wasn't as big as I'd have liked, but that wasn't in the contract. It said "elephant". we did that, and in dramatic fashion -- Rolling down a hillside, taking out trees on the way down; etc. An incredible experience.

I owe the agreed upon price!

We think alike

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Dave:

I think an indemnity is fine as long as it isn't overreaching. When they become so broad that there is no recourse for ANYTHING, I have a problem.

Off the top of my head, I can think of the following things that happened to me:

1- Bitten By horse, surgery required.

2- Bitten by spider. I was seriously ill.

3- Fell on ice splitting my hand open and cracking rifle stock.

4- Drank water from a water system that had multiple dead monkeys in it. I was seriously ill.

5- Horses wrecked gear including totally ruining a satellite phone.

Personally, I never considered legal action although there probably was negligence in item #1 above.

Where I start to have an issue is when every possible act is covered by the agreement. Items such as:

The hunt was never conducted.

The PH stayed drunk the entire time making the hunt a waste of time.

Intentional acts.

It is a difficult matter. No doubt.

Thanx Larry
Point taken. Luckily I don't have horses , unless the PH slams your hand in the door
I think if you want to succeed in this "Trade" u can't afford "intentional acts"
Thanks for the input