When you say you are glad that the decision was "on location", remember that Kenya is so politically correct that it has sacrificed 2/3rds of its wild animals to a Peta'ish concept of "conservation".

And, regardless of the lodge owners representations, without the filter of Disney (and C.H.A.T, Rosie O'Donnell, animal planet, etc.), folks know that elephants are dangerous.

It is sad when a child loses an eye or a woman gets "tusked", but the severity of the damage is not (or at least, should not) have anything to do with the issue of assumption of the risk. And, btw, there is no assumption of risk of an action blowing up (The state of the art is such that it should never happen if safety rules are followed by the user)... but there is one heck of a disconnect if one doesn't think jogging where dangerous animals range carries considerable risk, regardless of who says anything to the contrary.

As an extreme example, go to Sea World and sit by the edge of the pool. If the Shamu (or whatever) had a bad day calculating where he should do his flip and lands on you, is it Sea World's fault. Personally, I think it (and an elephant jog) are just the risks of seeing some of the cool parts of nature (in a pool or in Kenya) that we'd miss if we sat in padded rooms.

Think about it this way: If a snake had bitten the woman, obviously there would have been no suit... (and gettin bit by a snake was probably a greater risk) Why? Because we don't tend to put human charactics on snakes. We know that they are aren't cute, don't have pretty babies and don't fly by flapping their ears...

But the elephant should be controllable in a Disney'ed mind. They look sweet and go to elephant graveyards to mourn their dead, etc. This suit is all about confusing animals with mankind.. not about assuming the risks of dangerous animals, be they reptiles or the largest of the land beasts.

Ernest,

I think snakes are cute.

If you go to Yellowstone and get a back country permit, does that make the park's dept liable if you get attacked by a grizzly?

quote:

Originally posted by Woodrow S:
Yes, one can control the strength of a firearm, but in this case they were negligent and it cost your son/daughter their sight. Same for the lodge owner...he was negligent in passing along the information required so that she could make a rational decision to go out jogging or not. You are right about controlling the behavior of wild animals....the behavior of the lodge owner tells me he was just as much an animal as that elle. Besides, no matter how we choose to pick it apart...the decision was made as to who the guilty party was and that is good enough for me. The fact that it was tried "on location" an not somewhere else...speaks volumes about the outcome. The lodge owner must have had his head up his ass not to carry any insurance...imagine that would you. A multi-million dollar business...and NO insurance. He got what he deserved but she is paying the larger price for it. He will make more money...she will NEVER be the same. God forbid should something like this happen to any of you. Nuff said.

So you think it is the lodge owner's fault. That's just silly. Yes it did say "a wilderness experience with little or no game" well LITTLE means there could still be game around. and it was said that elephants had been spotted in the area the day before or a few days before or whatever it said. Just because they were spotted in the area doesn't mean that at the time they were within 300 yards of the lodge. Spotted within the area could mean within so many miles or whatever. but then there is still that word LITTLE.
When I was in high school one of my ag teachers Mr. Tandy had gotten on the side of a hill and turned a tractor over on him, bent both of his legs completely over and broke them. Doctors told him he would never walk again and wanted to amputate his legs. He told them heck no they weren't going to amputate his legs. He proved them wrong as he's been walking for years now and continues to do so. He has a limp but he gets around just fine. I can't remember what kind of tractor it was im thinking it was a John Deere but can't remember for sure. Anyway the point to this is he took a risk by getting on the side of the hill in his tractor and turned it over resulting in injury to himself that he has to live with for the rest of his life, as he has a very noticable limp when he walks so im sure that reminds him of it. But he didn't sue John Deere or International or whatever the maker of the tractor was he accepted RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS. After he started walking again he kept on teaching ag till he retired from it although he didn't need the money. He has farms is something big in a few banks around and is loaded. but he didn't sue and he didn't even have to keep teaching because a measley 25 or 30k to him wasn't all that much to him anyway. Anyway point is he took responsibility for his own actions and didn't try to blame the maker of the tractor.

quote:

Originally posted by GMaxson:
If you go to Yellowstone and get a back country permit, does that make the park's dept liable if you get attacked by a grizzly?

Yes, but if you go to Yellowstone you will be given a ton of info on the danger of bears and other wildlife along with information on how to avoid contact and if contact occurs what to do in the case of a confrontation. This Lady received none of those warnings. In fact she was told that there was little if any chance of seeing any type of wildlife even though the lodge owner knew that elephants were now in the vicinity of the lodge. She didn't have the info in the possession of the lodge to make a rational decision. I suspect if she knew how dangerous elephants can be and that they were seen near the lodge the day before, she might have made a different decision on going jogging. I certainly would have made a different decision had I had the knowledge of the Lodge owner.

465H&H

It is not the lodge owner's responsibility to tell the Elephant what it is suppost to do or not do. My guess is the elephant wouldn't listen anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
It is not the lodge owner's responsibility to tell the Elephant what it is suppost to do or not do. My guess is the elephant wouldn't listen anyway.

The question isn't if the lodge owner should have had a talk with the elephant but whether or not he should have had a talk with his guests.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:
It is not the lodge owner's responsibility to tell the Elephant what it is suppost to do or not do. My guess is the elephant wouldn't listen anyway.

The question isn't if the lodge owner should have had a talk with the elephant but whether or not he should have had a talk with his guests.

465H&H

Well as I said in my above post my high school ag teacher turned his tractor over by getting on a hillside. Im sure he knew he was taking a risk especially since it had a tricycle front end on it. Did he sue the maker of the tractor no he didn't. He took a risk and he knew he was taking a risk but he was a big boy about it and accepted responsibility for his own actions.
In this instance this lady is a prime example of one of the big problems with society today. If someone does something and they get hurt or whatever happens to them they want to blame someone else. No way it could be their own fault that's impossible. It has to be someone else's fault no way it could be their own fault oh no no way. As was said already people need to take responsibility for their own actions, how diffficult is that to understand, its not rocket science.
I broke my arm jumping a fourwheeler I didn't sue honda, I cut my leg using a chainsaw I didn't sue stihl for my emergency room bill, I've had a couple of car wrecks, I didn't sue the automobile maker, heck I even got hit by a drunk driver one time and I didn't sue him.

I don't know all the facts, but here are my thoughts:

Any Lodge owner with half a brain would make sure that all clientel was given a briefing on potential risks, however small they might be. If said owner had communicated that there was even a very slight chance of "wild animals" moving in from adjacent areas, etc, and that use of the facilities was at the clients own risk (which you would think would be a no-brainer in this case, especially any lodge in Africa that didn't have patrolled electric fences to keep game out!), THEN, I would say this should be chalked up to "shit happens". No fault attributable to lodge owner.

If, on the other hand, however, the client was led to believe that since this was a "no game" ranch and that it was safe to jog on its property, then fault must clearly lie with the lodge owner/manager.

It makes me wonder if there could be anyone in Kenya stupid enough to claim that there would be no risk associated with using their property. Even if they were SURE they'd managed to keep all DG out, how would you control the other things (snakes, etc) mentioned earlier??

Bottom line...if the lodge owner made no effort whatsoever to warn his client of potential risk, or especially if the owner said that use of the lands was safe, then he deserves to wear it. IMHO,

And for the record, I am all for people taking responsibility for their own actions...just as I am all for people getting what they paid for.

The vertict speaks for itself. The trial is OVER!

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
I wonder how big the ivory was?

Not big enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Jarrod:

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
I note that guys like "Jarrod" seem to think Africa is full of animals and dangerous game. Many parts of Africa have next to no game except for maybe some minor buck. Most black Kenyas for example have never seen a live elephant, lion, buffalo etc.

Now see there.. Don't go putting words in my mouth. I never once said anything about all of Africa being full of dangerous game around every corner. You just assume so. Of course im sure you know what happens when you assume don't you. When you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME, ASS-U-ME.

No my assumption was you have never been to Africa from your own previous comments.

Also how many people commenting here have done any independent travel in Africa outside of safari hunting areas, national parks, or game fringe areas?

I think the central points to this case was:

1. The area was promoted as being free from dangerous big game. Therefore a client can have an expectation that is true.

This could be the case even for Big White 'Experienced' Hunters. Large areas of Kenya are dangerous game free or relatively free.

BTW have any of you ever left the camp or a vehicle without a rifle? I know at lunch spots on safari my rifle is in the bakkie including when I wonder off to find a suitable bush.

2. The lodge Manager KNEW there were elephant very close to the lodge.

3. The Lodge Manager OFFERED and ENCOURAGED the woman to go jogging with no more than a local un-armed guide.

As I said previously IMO the Lodge Manager was criminally negligent in his conduct. By association the Lodge has a liability at least in part.

Compare this incident to the "The Hide" incident, where a lodge in a dangerous game area, provided a reportedly competent PH as a guide armed with a big bore rifle for an armed game viewing walk. Presumably before the walk the clients were briefed on how to act in the presence of DG.

An elephant charged, knocked over the PH and then killed two out of three of the clients.

The remaining family member declined to sue for anything, and took personal responsibility for what nature can dole out.

Which was appropriate in my opinion as dangerous game is dangerous.

Here we have a lodge which seemingly took no precautions at all, and got sued for it.

Businesses KNOW STUPID PEOPLE EXIST. That is why prudent smart businesses take certain precautions, procedural protections eg waivers, notices, information provided to claim the client was informed about risks, and proper business insurance. Not to mention warn clients, not encourage them, not to go into the bush without an armed guide.

But does Kenya allow armed guides? A very relevant point. Maybe people should be discouraged from going on safari holiday to Kenya?

The fact that the employees of the lodge were aware of a group of elephants in the area and then suggested that guests go for a jog in that situation does make the lodge accountable. The attack occurred on lodge property.

It is quite evident that if you own a resort of this type, in an area that has DG present, then contingencies have to be in place to monitor animal activity and you must be prepared to either control the animal movements or limit the guest movements to avoid conflict. It's a pretty simple idea really.

Based on this suing the lodge owner can be justified... although I despise litigation...

Is the woman stupid? I don't really believe that. I think she is an urban dweller that is out of her element though when faced with this situation and she was simply lucky to survive.

Damned fortunate that she survived!

And the elephant was just being an elephant...

For those here who voted... "shit happens". Say it happened to you. Once it is all over, you have a chance to make $1.6m out of this by suing. Tell me you wouldn't?

My primary advantage in this world is my intelligence, my ability to judge situations and respond accordingly. I refuse to surrender my ability to the unpredictable abilities of another i.e. owner/manager, government or process. Unfortunately less confident people will want to make that trade in a attempt to numb down responsibility, where they could never be wrong, because they didn't make any choices - it's someone else's fault. I feel sorry for those people, I would hate to live in a world hemmed in by the vagaries of other people.

I haven't seen enough of this case to have a strong opinion one way or another, but to suggest justice was served because a verdict was made and the trial is over is ludicrous in todays litigation where the norm is all to often a deceitful play on words based upon secreted or artificialized guilt.

I vote, don't let the shit happen....

The real suit should have been filed against a society that trained her to expect no danger!

quote:

Originally posted by RayRay:
My primary advantage in this world is my intelligence, my ability to judge situations and respond accordingly. I refuse to surrender my ability to the unpredictable abilities of another i.e. owner/manager, government or process. Unfortunately less confident people will want to make that trade in a attempt to numb down responsibility, where they could never be wrong, because they didn't make any choices - it's someone else's fault. I feel sorry for those people, I would hate to live in a world hemmed in by the vagaries of other people.

I haven't seen enough of this case to have a strong opinion one way or another, but to suggest justice was served because a verdict was made and the trial is over is ludicrous in todays litigation where the norm is all to often a deceitful play on words based upon secreted or artificialized guilt.

I vote, don't let the shit happen....

The real suit should have been filed against a society that trained her to expect no danger!

The Woman was naive or stupid. She should have realized that the African bush is no place to jog unarmed.

Having said that, the Lodge was negligent for inticing her to undertake a risky activity without providing her with any safeguards. If She should have understood that an unarmed jog through the bush was dangerous, than the Lodge Staff should also have know that. They not only ignored the danger, they invited her to engage in the dangerous activity. She had the right to believe that the lodge would provide reasonable safeguards to minimize the risk. The Lodge provided no such safeguards and further, abandoned her when the situation became dangerous. They left her to fend for herself and, when she incurred injuries, did not stick around to render medical assistance.

I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for your own actions, or failure to act, that is why I believe that the verdict was correct. The actions of the lodge staff, in inviting her to engage in a risky activity and abandoning her in a time of peril, and their inaction in failing to take reasonable precautions for their guest's safety, such as arming their guide, or to remain on site to render medical assistance when a guest was injured while engaging in a lodge sponsered event, far outweighed any negligence she may have had.

My 2 cents

TerryR

quote:

Originally posted by RayRay:
My primary advantage in this world is my intelligence, my ability to judge situations and respond accordingly. I refuse to surrender my ability to the unpredictable abilities of another i.e. owner/manager, government or process. Unfortunately less confident people will want to make that trade in a attempt to numb down responsibility, where they could never be wrong, because they didn't make any choices - it's someone else's fault. I feel sorry for those people, I would hate to live in a world hemmed in by the vagaries of other people.

I haven't seen enough of this case to have a strong opinion one way or another, but to suggest justice was served because a verdict was made and the trial is over is ludicrous in todays litigation where the norm is all to often a deceitful play on words based upon secreted or artificialized guilt.

I vote, don't let the shit happen....

The real suit should have been filed against a society that trained her to expect no danger!

A different scenario but quite similar. Just a discussion nothing personal for anyone on the thread.

***

You visit the Top End of Oz.

There is a large pond or pool with a waterfall. Lots of tourists, maybe three dozen are swimming out to the waterfall. Pretty girls sun baking in bikinis. People having BBQs.

There is a sign saying "swim at your own risk". The sign has a cartoon picture of a croc head with its jaws open with a swimming person in between them.

You ask your tour guide about the sign and the risk and he says to you, "No problem, there are never been any salties here and the pool is patrolled regularly by rangers for drag sign."

You go swimming and get attacked by a salty croc. Somehow you survive but have horrible injuries and lots of pain for the rest of your life.

Would you sue the tour company and/or the guide? Especially if you have trouble affording the medical and other bills.

How would the decision change if you found out later that the tour guide was told by a ranger that a large saltwater crocodile had been sighted the night before or a fresh large drag mark (ie where they enter and exit the water) was found the day before?

I am pretty sure the warning sign with the picture of the croc biting the swimmer would keep me out of the water.

They usually put up those signs only after the incident depicted (i.e., a croc munching a swimmer) has actually happened a couple of times.

Of course, in former days if a pretty girl in a bikini had been there who was willing to skinny dip, I might have just said damn the crocs, full speed ahead!

But then, that is called assumption of risk, or stupidity, or both, depending upon your perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:

A different scenario but quite similar. Just a discussion nothing personal for anyone on the thread.

I'm pretty sure I saw that one on television, only it was night when the swimming commenced. Maybe I am remembering wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_Helm:

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:

A different scenario but quite similar. Just a discussion nothing personal for anyone on the thread.

I'm pretty sure I saw that one on television, only it was night when the swimming commenced. Maybe I am remembering wrong.

Charles

Yes. I may have written that one as 'hypothetical' but a recent incident in the last few years was somewhat similar to the "scenario" I posted. A tourist guide whom should have known better did encourage tourists to go swimming where they shouldn't. He and his tour company suffered from the law after I believe.

People, clients and customers can be stupid. But they DO have a certain right to being told accurate and sensible advice by people whom should know a lot better.

Used to fly out of Jomo Kenyatta. One morning driving to work, we damned near centerpunched a twelve foot cobra that charged across the road 100 meters from where our aircraft was parked.

There is a huge wildlife park just west of the airport. Lions often cross the runways, and SAS or somebody in a DC8 freighter clipped a wildebeest with their nosewheels one night. So there is game near Nairobi. But that doesn't relieve the lodge owner and staff from liability.

I have to agree with the lady. She's not bush-qualified. She likely lived in a walled compound in N'gong or somwhere like that, partied and maybe played golf at Muthaiga or Windsor, and rarely left the city. Maybe flew down to Mombasa or up to Lamu for vacation.

If the lodge's management told her that it was safe, her obvious lack of bush experience didn't prepare her to question the lodge management's judgement.

I find for the plaintiff.

Given the high level of endemic corruption in Kenya, I find it absolutely stunning that the lodge owner didn't bribe the judge. This is truly an amazing decision from a Kenyan court.