I do as well.

However there is a chain of responsibility... maybe just an honor thing.

kids
unarmed clients
unarmed guides
armed clients
ph

The lower ones protect the upper ones.

Or am I wrong and it's simply everyone for themselves?

No you're not wrong at all. Are we are brother's (or sister's) keeper? Yep, whether we judge it as correct or not. None of us really know the circunstances of this incident. From Kathi's lead in on this, the woman is maimed for life. There are often gray lines between stupidity and ignorance. Nevertheless, in a world full of outrageous litigation, cynicism is rampant. If going on safari won't bring the happiness I seek, maybe money will, correct?

It's very hard for me to reasonably believe that a 47 year old woman from England who has lived in Kenya for a number of years, and who decided to go on a "bush run" (a "bush run" doesn't that sound a little odd in the first place?) didn't know that there might be danger lurking in the bush, be it wild animals or otherwise. She could have questioned the experienced bush guide about the safety of it first, questioned the need for security, or not gone at all. On the other hand, the experienced bush guide should have specifically warned them all of the dangers of the "bush run". Maybe the dangers should have been printed on his running shirt, both back and front. Of course, the most likely outcome will be that the insurance company will offer her a settlement.

Well I was at Ngorongoro Crater in December, and was more than a little surprised to find out that several guests staying in the Sopa Lodge where I was routinely went for a run down the road along the crater rim in the mornings. Holy shit! There are elephant, buffalo, lion, leopard, and God knows what else hanging around the pucker brush. Did anyone at the hotel tell them not to run with the animals? I really don't know, but I seriously doubt it. This is Africa. It has become a world destination for urban folks, the same folks who routinely run throuh big cities and places that they shouldn't and at the times of day that the shouldn't. There is no solution to this thread because we are commenting on what would seem to be basic common sense. Some folks play Russian roulette and don't even know it.

If a simliar incident happened in Mississippi, and her skin was of the correct color, she would likely get a judgement for a few gazillion dollars from somebody.

quote:

Originally posted by yellowstone:
If going on safari won't bring the happiness I seek, maybe money will, correct?

Sorry, but if you don't find happiness on safari then you won't find it anywhere.

I think that was on the third tablet that Moses brought was to bring down from the mountain. Too bad he dropped it on the way.

When my wife and I were doing the tourist thing in tanzania in 1996 we had our own driver/guide (a black guy who was excellent). He wouldn't let us out of the car except in designated fenced areas, nor would he get out of the car.

mike

Ya know that's right. I had forgotten that part. Our guide was the same way. We were limited to 30 ft. from the land cruiser and no more. I think he had a tape measure to be sure. Of course it was metric so I was able to cheat a little bit so I could take a leak in private.

Serioulsy your walking along and the lady gets attacked by a pissed off mother elephant. No one is armed. What are you going to do get a stick and whoop the elephant with it and say BAD girl.

I got chewed out by my ph in zim for wandering 75 yards away from the truck with 2 unarmed guides (I had my rifle) to look at a Wildebeest carcass. He was very concerned about a lion showing up to the party and the guides dissapearing while leaving me to deal with it by myself. He said they are very swift runners. I had a few introspective moments.

I don't know that anything would have helped that woman once the elephant attacked. Like most accidents it seems to consist of compounding mistakes. From what I read in that story the lodge should clearly not allow there guides to take customers into the DG bush (off a vehicle) without arming someone. And since the guide was an employee of the lodge then they are responsible for making the mistake of either not arming the guide or having a guide that runs instead of shoots. In any case she should have reasonably felt under some form of protection since she was accompanied by an employee of the lodge and they are (should be) the local experts.

Now if she had wandered off by herself... that would be a darwin moment. Much like my wandering could have been.

picture this:
The lady goes on a run understanding full well the inherent risks. She get´s gored and trampled, the guide can´t prevent that because he´s unarmed, etc. but after the ele leaves provides first aid and re-assurance and arranges for air medivac.
Recovering at home, she has no ill feelings towards the guide or lodge. However, hundreds of well wishers visit her and someone mentions "sue them for negligence, after all the McDonald lady won!". That sets the clock ticking and an inquiry with her greedy lawyer does the rest. She never held any grudges but a small window of opportunity to make a fortune out of it was presented to her.


I know another story where an unarmed guide in Zambia threw himself in front of a charging ele as the armed game scout ran off stranding the clients. He got killed and torn apart, the clients all safe. The one client asked for a refund from his tour company because his safari was interrupted. Money can make one do strange things......

Thanks for the confirmation that my understanding is correct.

SGraves155 - Your use of profanity and swear words in a public forum which can be read by women and children is uncalled for, crass, crude and reflects poor character. Sadly, it does affect the public impression of all sports hunters and gives credibility to anti-hunters. I don't I'm the only one I in this forum who is embarassed (this is the second time in a few months where I've seen profanity used in this forum - and I was told this was the premier web forum for traveling sports hunters)

If you want to be taken seriously, clean it up.

To the Moderators: please take the time to look at this gentleman's past posts. If in your opinion, the posts have not been contributing and/or if you feel his use of profanity is not a one-off occurance (already used twice in one day on this thread), perhaps he should be warned or suspended.

I usually don't bother to reply to profane posts. But the issue of "what I would do" is relevant because I did consider it before.

I would like to think (one never knows what one will do when disasters actually happen!) that if I was responsible for a group and confronted unarmed with a charging elephant, I would:

- since I don't have the skills to tell if it's a mock charge or a real charge, I would probably shout "run" to the others then run.

- after about 40-50 yards (around 5-10 seconds assuming the elephant hasn't caught up with me) if I don't hear her charging behind me nor see her out of the corner of my eye looking back, I would start looking for brush cover to hide beneath or a tree to climb which an elephant might have trouble knocking down. If worse, came to worse, I would dive to the ground spread eagle and freeze.

- I would see if I could spot or hear the elephant. If all is quiet or if the elephant has stopped its charge, I would call out the names of the people in the group to see if they are OK (combat military would know this drill).

- If a person is missing or if someone screams, I would look for them fast. If I found the elephant attacking someone, I hope I would throw sticks, rocks, or branches and make a lot of noise to try and distract the elephant away from the victim. If I had my lighter and dry brush was around, I would try to start a fire to make smoke and wave it around.

- If the elephant came after me, I would run and repeat the above.

Hope this answers your question. More comments later after more people have had a chance to post.

Some forms of stupidity in print just call out for profanity. Your posts (and JHunt's) are dandy examples.

quote:

Originally posted by SGraves155:
Some forms of stupidity in print just call out for profanity. Your posts (and JHunt's) are dandy examples.

When an angry elephant intent on murder catches someone, only bullets or a calming of the rage is gonna make the elephant stop. Throwing sticks and yelling --or even letting the animal be aware of your presence--is NOT going to allow it to calm down quicker, it will only aggravate the situation and probably get someone else killed. Your advice is not only ignorant, but also dangerous--dangerous enough to get someone else killed. THAT is good reason for profanity!

johnhunt your comments are so off track that it makes me suspect that you're either a trial lawyer yourself or an letegious imbecile. what if the elephant had snatched the twit off the vehicle? how bout if she's been bitten by a poisionous snake? this is nothing more than an african version of the infamous hot coffee debacle.

Unfortunatly this sort of thing is the norm nowadays (sueing people that is) because she wasnt TOLD it could be dangerous then the blame can be levelled elseware, if she hadn`t tripped over then you could argue that she may have ran to saftey.This is very similar to what happened to Raleagh(spelling) bicycles, man buys bike rides bike in dark without lights and gets run over, sues Raleagh(spelling!!!) for not telling people to use lights in the dark and he won!!!.
Unfortunatly all it boils down to is where there is blame there is a claim and common sense doesnt come into it.

Well I am not a trial lawyer but I may be an litigious imbecile (though in my 40+ years on this planet I have yet to go to court for anything other then a speeding ticket). I do think we have an overly litigious society, but that doesn't mean all litigation is wrong.

I have contributed more then my share to this conversation. Lets just respectively disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by degoins:
i think the elephant should be fired for not making sure this idiot was taken out of the gene pool!!!

My sentiments exactly. I was going to say it's the elephant that should be sued...for incompetence!

of course not all litigation is wrong, but litigation for this and similar situations clearly is IMHO. and john i appologize if i have offended you with my remarks. cases like this infuriate me to no end.

No offense taken. Just started to notice that I was repeating myself. Seems we have three camps.

1. Those that figure everyone for themselves
2. Those that don't. But think the lawsuit is frivolous.
3. Those that don't and think the lodge might have some culpability since they were providing the facilities, the guide, the location and they know that the typical client is likely poorly versed in the wilds of Africa.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
I do as well.

However there is a chain of responsibility... maybe just an honor thing.

kids
unarmed clients
unarmed guides
armed clients
ph

The lower ones protect the upper ones.

Or am I wrong and it's simply everyone for themselves?

I aggree with JohnHunt, its about honor. I don't know if I could live with myself knowing that I had saved myself while a woman that I was guiding, or other wise was killed. That guide had a rare chance to die a hero, rather than die a coward. What ever happened to women and children first?

Now as to her sueing over this, that is another issue. I mean come on you pay your money, you take your chances.

What some are overlooking is that this lady undoubtedly signed a waiver of liability and indemnity agreement running something along these lines:

"The Customer(s) acknowledge(s) and agree(s) that (i) there are certain inherent risks involved in participating in wildlife viewing activities of the kind conducted by Elephant Up Close Safaris and such activities, and adventure travel in general, whether in civilized or remote areas, by plane, train, automobile, truck, boat, horseback, elephant tusk, other conveyance, or on foot, involves inherently dangerous risks of illness, injury, death or loss and damage of person and property, which may be caused by negligence of others, forces of nature, including but not limited to enraged elephants and other widely and generally known to be extremely dangerous wild animals, and other causes known or unknown, before, during and after such activity or travel, (ii) they will participate in the wildlife viewing activities and all related activities which are the subject of this agreement at their own risk; (iii) it shall be their responsibility to take all appropriate medical and psychiatric advice prior to departure as to whether they are physically and mentally fit, intelligent and careful enough to undertake the activity they have booked, (iv) by accepting these terms and conditions, they acknowledge and agree that adventure travel, whether in civilized or remote areas, by plane, train, auto, boat, horseback, elephant tusk, other conveyance, or on foot, involves inherently dangerous risks of illness, injury, death or loss and damage of person and property, which may be caused by negligence of others, forces of nature, including enraged elephants, and other causes known or unknown, (v) elephants and other widely and generally known to be extremely dangerous wild animals are unpredictable creatures and when approached on foot, whether walking or jogging, in khakis or spandex, can be and are frequently lethal to the walker or jogger, especially when the elephant or other extremely dangerous wild animal in question is an enraged cow elephant legitimately concerned about the well-being of her nearby calf, and (vi) they hereby agree to release, discharge, forever quitclaim, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Elephant Up Close Safaris and any and all principals, agents, employees, partners, members, directors, officers, shareholders, guides, handholders, babysitters and any other beneficial or legal owners or employees of Elephant Up Close Safaris of, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, claims or actions of any nature whatsoever arising out of, resulting from or relating to their participation in the wildlife viewing and all related activities which are the subject of this agreement."

Of course, she also undoubtedly claimed she just signed it, and didn't read it because she had been assured as a child by Walt Disney that animals are our friends and the world is safe.

Look, Africa is a DANGEROUS PLACE by all stretches of the imagination, whether it's from the animals or from the populace. A majority of the world's people have watched way too many Lion King movies, way too many Crocodile Hunter diaries, way too many movies like Gorillas In The Mist, and way too many Wild Kingdom episodes, where many animals are depicted as humanlike, loving, cudely, innocent, and friendly. Wild animals are WILD AND DANGEROUS. Would you jog in a zoo enclosure with wild animals? So why in the hell would you think that you are safe jogging unprotected on a "Bush Run" in the wilds of Africa where animals are indeed attracted to humans RUNNING and perspiring? To sue because you claim you weren't warned of the dangers of the African wildlife is in my opinion, outright ridiculous, especially if you have lived there for a number of years as had the English woman who was severely injured. In any event, if you run unprotected in the wilds of Africa expect to be viewed by some of the wildlife as a potential meal, or perhaps perceived as a threat to dangerous game. The better alternative would have been to run along one of the Preserve's roads followed by a Safari vehicle from a reasonable distance for security and protection. It's a safe bet that the "Bush Run" has now been abolished. We have the very same thing happen here in the United States in some of our own national parks where vistors think that the cute and cudely animals are safe and can be approached while out jogging or walking, or just approached from off of the tour bus or from getting out of their cars for photos or for touching. Every year people are gored by bison and elk in Yellowstone National Park. Grizzlies also occasionally attack and injure or kill joggers, fishermen and walkers in Yellowstone, the Grand Tetons, Glacier, Denali and other wild and remote parts of Alaska, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. Moreover, cougars have attacked, killed or severely injured several joggers and walkers in the West, in states like Colorado and California. One just happened in California last month. And then we had that idiotic fool Timothy Treadwell that tried to live with the brown bears of Alaska and "be one of them". Well, both he and his girlfriend ended up being a "part of them", after they were killed and eaten. Someone needs to tell all of our bunny huggers, animal lovers, and eco-tourists going to visit wild places like Africa that all wild animals are dangerous. Finally, "Bush Runs" in Africa have to be considered dangerous from any reasonable, rational and sane person's viewpoint. Having said all of that, the Lodge should be held responsible in part for allowing or taking visitors unprotected on "Bush Runs", knowing that dangerous game could or might be encountered. That, in and of itself, was and is an insane thing to do with your guests, and quite close to being considered an ultra hazardous activity, without having adequate protection for your guests. Once again, it is apparent that an insurance settlement will be in the offering for the English Woman for some negligence on the part of the Lodge.

This will prove to be a case of a double goring. The first by the elephant, the second will be by her lawyer.

The lawsuit? Whatever. I'm more impressed that the woman (the goree?) managed to survive the physical abuse described. Now there's a story for the grandkiddies!

She would get more money writing the book and then making the movie of it. What a dimwit. Who said the guide took her running...remember, her husband was a diplomat and that guide(and all the other hired help)better damned well do whatever she wanted done. Perhaps he was resistant and she was insistent. The people of this caliber get what they want no matter what...and maybe this time she got more than she bargained for. That guide knew what had to be done for the best outcome under the circumstances, and did just that. He told everyone to run, which they did. Had she not fallen, she would have averted the thrashing like everyone else in that party...but she did make a mistake, and paid dearly for it. Who is really at fault when you do the root cause problem solving...her husband for bringing her along in the first place. You can bet HE won't make that mistake again. A dollar to a donut that this case gets thrown out of court...why do you think it took 4 yrs. to get this far? Yup, theres one born every day!

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
Sure lets extend the analogy...

Your London Nanny takes your daughter out for a walk, while crossing a street she sees a car coming, and fast (or maybe a pack of dogs).

What are your expectations of her? Does she have any sort of responsibility to get your daughter to safety?

Does she have a contract that includes giving up her life for the child in the event of unforseen circumstances? If not you have no case!