The Stu Taylor thread raised some questions for me. It is tragic and will haunt both men the rest of their lives. The opinion of the AR community seems clear since an accidental discharge occurred.
My question is would the opinion of the group be the same if an animal was gut shot by a hunter and the PH badly injured in follow-up? The John Greef story comes to mind. The results are equally tragic yet it doesn't seem to be treated the same.
I plan to call my insurance agent to see just what my various insurance policies will and won't cover. I'm sure the "you're not covered" phrase would be heard about the wounded animal follow-up but I don't know about the gunshot situation.
There has to be a way to protect the Phs by insurance. It costs about $300 for medical emergency insurance and I would think the probability of it being used would be far greater than loss of income from injury. I would gladly pay an extra $300 on my next trip to ease what Tim Herald is probably experiencing.

It would seem that feelings of obligation vary. Some folks exhibit a knee jerk rection to help others, some look the other way and keep going. We've seen headlines just recently regarding commuters jumping on train tracks to save the lives of fellow commuters stricken ill and having fallen on the tracks themselves. We've also all watched video of pedestrians prostrate on the sidewalk dying as their neighbors walk around and keep going. I'll never forget the conversation I had with the sweet, blue haired little old lady that was broken down along side the highway. That day was around 100 degrees f and her ford had overheated. Steam billowed out of the radiator and she and her bluehaired lady friend stood outside the sedan bewildered and unsure of a solution. Blue sky, unlimited visibility day, long straight stretch of interstate and several, several motorist including a state trooper passed them by without assisting. Not my Granny, not my problem, I'm in a hurry. Not my responsibility.

As a professional function it seems to me the guides association could group buy a major medical policy, charge a member fee and that fee is passed along to the client. As with our client oriented medivac ins, it would seem the policy could be daily based so a 14 day hunt comes with a 14 day policy for the ph. I full well understand the expenses adding up being a lot of expenses and at that un affordable but on the other hand I'd rather not feel the burden of selling my home in order to assist a friend/ employee/ associate I've injured. I'm guessing about the policy of course, I know little to nothing about insurance.

At the risk of torquing others off since I seem to be doing a good job of that lately, I think the primary responsibility for addressing the situation falls on the affected individual, the person injured or hurt. Let me give you an example, if I am in a car accident tomorrow caused by another driver that was intoxicated, and I am killed or seriously injured in the accident, the obligation to ensure that myself and my family is taken care of is mine. I address that obligation through savings, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance and similar means. For me to depend on the other person for responsibility is irresponsible. I think the same situation exists in spades for someone in a profession like professional hunting where the risks are obvious and well known. It is incumbent on the PH to take actions to protect himself and his family and no one should be looking to someone else has having the primary responsibility to make the situation right. I am not suggesting that the drunk driver in my example or the client in a hunting example does not have their own set of obligations and responsibilities for the accident, but I believe that those are ancillary and the primary responsibility is on the affected person. Today we are too quick to want to assign responsibility to someone else every time something goes wrong, instead of acknowledging our own responsibility and taking accountability for our own well being.

Okay, now folks can call me an asshole, hunting show lackey, etc.

Mike,
Just a pointer, the "asshole" I was referring to was me.

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[a] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
At the risk of torquing others off since I seem to be doing a good job of that lately, I think the primary responsibility for addressing the situation falls on the affected individual, the person injured or hurt. Let me give you an example, if I am in a car accident tomorrow caused by another driver that was intoxicated, and I am killed or seriously injured in the accident, the obligation to ensure that myself and my family is taken care of is mine. I address that obligation through savings, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance and similar means. For me to depend on the other person to for responsibility is irresponsible. I think the same situation exists in spades for someone in a profession like professional hunting where the risks are obvious and well known. It is incumbent on the PH to take actions to protect himself and his family and no one should be looking to someone else has having the primary responsibility to make the situation right. I am not suggesting that the drunk driver in my example or the client in a hunting example does not have their own set of obligations and responsibilities for the accident, but I believe that those are ancillary and the primary responsibility is on the affected person. Today we are too quick to want to assign responsibility to someone else every time something goes wrong, instead of acknowledging our own responsibility and taking accountability for our own well being.

Okay, now folks can call me an asshole, hunting show lackey, etc.

I think you are a fine man but today we will just have to disagree a bit....

While I do think we are are responsible to take care of our families and our own lives, some of these events discussed are life changing, effectively limiting the ability of one to make a living, etc. With regard to a PH, they may not have the ability to purchase insurance coverage for many reasons, I am just not sure...

I was in an accident about a year ago, nothing major but my car had damage and I had a few medical bills....certainly I had insurance and the resources to cover this but the accident was NOT caused by me. In the end, the other driver's insurance company paid for all the costs, as it should be...

Lou, I am not sure I can answer your question but have these thoughts....In regards to Tim Herald, based on what I have read his actions directly caused the injuries to Stu and in the US he would most likely be held responsible for the costs, either through insurance or personally. What I do not understand is if Tim was working for his employer, at the time of the accident, what responsibility does his employer have?

I do not have any knowledge about the other incident you describe (other than what you posted) but would say that it is not a direct cause of the injury, a bit different than Tim Herald's accident. While there is a difference, I still think there is an obligation....It seems to me that following up on a wounded animal is part of the PH job and a known risk he and his employer take on as part of their job....very different from Tim's accident..

A lesson should be learned here. We should all know if our insurance covers something like this or not. I hate to admit it but I work with a large number of insurance companies. I have no idea if my liability policy would cover this or not. We should all know. Furthter , all PH's should undertake a review of their own insurance as well as the insurance of their company.


In the US, this would be covered by workers compensation policies. Medical expenses and a portion of lost wages would be covered. This was Mozambique not the US. No one seems to be questioning what Kambako has done or not done.

Mike is right regarding responsibility for ourselves and our families. We sometimes try to buy our way out (insurance), enter into agreements (hold harmless) or simply abdicate our responsibilities, but they are still ours. We try to shift it to our parents when we are young or to society or a government as we get older but both are wrong. I am convinced if the roles were reversed in the Stu-Tim incident, the client would have been told to check his safari contract and that since safari hunting in inherently hazardous, you are on your own. They are stating the obvious. I am sure that Stu is accepting the responsibility for him and his family and that Tim will do what he can to help mitigate the problem. I for one would not willingly change places with either.


Tom

After the accident occured, I called my homeowners ins. agent to ask about this specific situation.
I was told that my policy covered me worldwide & would indeed cover this in my liability section.
I bumped my liabilty coverage up from $500,000 to 1 million that day for only $15 more per year on my premium.
I take responcibility for me & mine, but I would also feel strongly that I should help someone else especially if I were the responcible party.

Considering the nature of the justice (?) systems common to many (all?) African nations, it would probably serve clients and PHs best if they purchased their own "no fault" type coverage. I know that on my recent trip to Tanzania, I bought my own medical evacuation insurance, even though it's only recommended by the outfitter. I don't even want to think about the problems that could have arisen without even that basic safeguard.

Gentlemen,
I also bumped up my homeowners liability insurance to 1 million after hearing about this. I also would not trade places with Stu or Tim. IT COULD HAPPEN TO ANY OF US COMPUTER WIZARDS. BUT, WE WEREN'T IN HIS SHOES. We have to pay for medical air rescue, I realize that insurance for the PH's is expensive, they have a hazardous job but we can beat this horse to death.
We can pick this apart or let it be, it doesn't change a damn thing. After talking to Tim, He isn't nonchalant about this, he's pretty tore up. Get off him. An accident happened and I'm pretty sure his "lawyers and Insurance companies" have advised him to stay out of it. Come on gentlemen, let him be. It will settle out where it does. I don't believe that he will walk away unscathed.

Insurance at home is not going to cover you abroad.

Something no one has brought up.....what if the situation were inverted? What if some PH accidentally shot a client (I have had PHs with dubious rifle handling habits)? Would we be riding the PH to step up faster and with more determination or would we just adopt a "you should have insured yourself" attitude toward the client? Does the safari community's tendency toward "hero worship" of PHs have anything to do with this? Are PHs or outfitters really so uninsurable that it is actually the clients responsibility to insure himself and effectively insure those people around him with whom he has a business relationship? How many PHs and outfitters here have or have looked into insurance for themselves or their employees? Not trying to judge anyone here....but trying to get a picture of why we think as we do.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
At the risk of torquing others off since I seem to be doing a good job of that lately, I think the primary responsibility for addressing the situation falls on the affected individual, the person injured or hurt. Let me give you an example, if I am in a car accident tomorrow caused by another driver that was intoxicated, and I am killed or seriously injured in the accident, the obligation to ensure that myself and my family is taken care of is mine. I address that obligation through savings, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance and similar means. For me to depend on the other person for responsibility is irresponsible. I think the same situation exists in spades for someone in a profession like professional hunting where the risks are obvious and well known. It is incumbent on the PH to take actions to protect himself and his family and no one should be looking to someone else has having the primary responsibility to make the situation right. I am not suggesting that the drunk driver in my example or the client in a hunting example does not have their own set of obligations and responsibilities for the accident, but I believe that those are ancillary and the primary responsibility is on the affected person. Today we are too quick to want to assign responsibility to someone else every time something goes wrong, instead of acknowledging our own responsibility and taking accountability for our own well being.

Okay, now folks can call me an asshole, hunting show lackey, etc.

Mike to a great degree I agree with you. I am insured against most losses that I am aware of in case I am involved in any incident whether it is my fault or not.

I also believe that far too many people tend not to accept the responsibilities and obligations of their actions when harm is caused to others. Responsibility should not be assigned, it should be readily accepted.

However we carry liability insurance as part of our responsibility toward ourselves and others. I do not see it as assigning blame but being accountable for my actions. If I am driving and daydreaming about hunting in Africa, run a stop sign and smash in to the side of your car you are insured against the loss. Even though it was purely unintentional and accidental I have an obligation to pay for your loss as you did nothing wrong, even though driving is an inherently dangerous activity. That is why we carry liability insurance, to relieve the financial burden of taking responsibility of our actions.

Like Bwana Cecil I met with my agent. He assured me that my liability coverage is worldwide and includes hunting activities. In this day it is foolish to be without at least a million dollar umbrella.

And Mike you know I am a bigger hunting show lackey than you and proud of it.

I think there have been some really interesting questions raised on this thread. One, what obligation do outfitters have to protect their own employees from job-related risks, whether through insurance or otherwise? My guess, happy to be proven wrong, is that most outfitters treat their employees as the equivalent of independent contractors and leave it up the employee to protect themselves. Sure, they will stand by them up to a point but they are not going to underwrite the cost of making the situation right. Two, how would this situation be viewed if it were reversed and the PH accidentally shot the client? Again, happy to be proven wrong, but my guess is that the waiver of liability and limitation of liability clauses in the contract would be pulled out and pointed to by the outfitter. Accidents happen right, and dangerous game hunting is an inherently dangerous activity . . . .

Both of these questions really just reinforce what I said above, in the end everyone has to take appropriate steps to protect themselves. If they do not, shame on them.

quote:

Two, how would this situation be viewed if it were reversed and the PH accidentally shot the client? Again, happy to be proven wrong, but my guess is that the waiver of liability and limitation of liability clauses in the contract would be pulled out and pointed to by the outfitter.

I believe the moment the PH or outfitter would arrive in the US he would be served with a lawsuit (along with the booking agent). No idea what law would/should govern. I have also been told that basically you cannot sign your legal rights away in a contract or indemnity agreement. I know it is never that simple but you always have basic rights and protection under the law.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:

quote:

Two, how would this situation be viewed if it were reversed and the PH accidentally shot the client? Again, happy to be proven wrong, but my guess is that the waiver of liability and limitation of liability clauses in the contract would be pulled out and pointed to by the outfitter.

I believe the moment the PH or outfitter would arrive in the US he would be served with a lawsuit (along with the booking agent). No idea what law would/should govern. I have also been told that basically you cannot sign your legal rights away in a contract or indemnity agreement. I know it is never that simple but you always have basic rights and protection under the law.

One, even if you could serve the outfitter or PH, ever try to enforce a judgment entered by a Texas court in Zimbabwe? Neither have I, but my guess is that you will spend more money enforcing the judgment than the amount of the judgment in the first place. Two, be careful assuming that indemnity and limitation of liability agreements are unenforceable, courts enforce them every day. You might stand a chance of having the provisions thrown out in a retail consumer type contract, but in a contract like we are talking about here I would start from the presumption that a properly written indemnity or limitation of liability clause would be enforced. Good news is that the ones the outfitters use rarely meet that standard . . . in which case, you are back to the first point, you can get a judgment, maybe, but turning that judgment into dollars is a whole different thing.

In the end, I would rather be suing my insurance company for a denial of coverage than I would some outfitter located half way around the world.

quote:

What if some PH accidentally shot a client (I have had PHs with dubious rifle handling habits)?

And how many such incidents of clients being shot by their PHs come to mind?

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

What if some PH accidentally shot a client (I have had PHs with dubious rifle handling habits)?

And how many such incidents of clients being shot by their PHs come to mind?

Great point. It could never happen right. PHs are faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Saeed
Immediately after the debate started about Stu getting shot, I called my Ins. Agent & told him the story about the shooting & ask would I be covered in case something like this happened with me involved & he said that my homeowners policy covered me worldwide.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

What if some PH accidentally shot a client (I have had PHs with dubious rifle handling habits)?

And how many such incidents of clients being shot by their PHs come to mind?

Great point. It could never happen right. PHs are faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Did I say it couldn't happen?

In 2012 alone 3 PHs collected a client's bullet and one individual got killed in the process of cleaning up the mess of made of a buffalo (client was more concerned on a replacement PH so he could finish his hunt).

For the moment we have 3 incidents by virtue of fact:

The one is believed to have gotten away lightly;
The second has lost his right arm and is maimed for life;
The third is in a pretty bad state and all the prayers in the world don't seem to have helped much!

Very few PHs have that kind of insurance, either because they cannot afford it or gamble that the money is better spent towards their families and secondly, the last thing they expect is for an "Accidental Discharge".

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

What if some PH accidentally shot a client (I have had PHs with dubious rifle handling habits)?

And how many such incidents of clients being shot by their PHs come to mind?

Great point. It could never happen right. PHs are faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

Very few PHs have that kind of insurance, either because they cannot afford it or gamble that the money is better spent towards their families and secondly, the last thing they expect is for an "Accidental Discharge".

So let me see if I understand, they make a personal choice not to address the risk and that makes the rest of us responsible for their well being when the shit hits the fan? Just trying to ensure I understand.

MJines:

Too damned right you will be responsible for the bullet that leaves the muzzle of your rifle!
Insurance or no bloody insurance.

When the "shit hits the fan" in my language does not include a bullet on my person. The Buffalo, Lion or Leopard that may have been wounded during the course of the hunt falls into that phrase I don't have a problem with the client if I get nailed as I had the opportunity to take care of a situation in which I failed.

quote:

MJines:

Too damned right you will be responsible for the bullet that leaves the muzzle of your rifle!
When the "shit hits the fan" in my language does not include a bullet on my person. The Buffalo, Lion or Leopard that may have been wounded during the course of the hunt falls into that phrase I don't have a problem with the client if I get nailed as I had the opportunity to take care of a situation in which I failed.

Well said Fujo. Some on this thread have spent too much time in the courtroom and have convinced themselves that if they can find some loophole to get it by a judge or a jury that relieves them of responsibility. Well, it may relieve you of legal liability but it doesn't relieve you of moral responsibility. These are the people who are bringing this country to it's knees.

Some of you sound like the "experts" one sees on sports TV networks.

Those who have all the answers for what had happened on the field!

The fact that they were not there makes no difference.

We like to say that we will do such and such a thing if such and such happens.

How many people have said precisely this, and they were caught totally unprepared when the actual shit hit that fan?

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
Too damned right you will be responsible for the bullet that leaves the muzzle of your rifle!
Insurance or no bloody insurance.

I don't think anyone is saying that the client lacks responsibility or that they should not make financial efforts to make things right. The theoretical issue is whether or not the PH or safari company or booking agency would ever do the same. I am inclined to doubt it and that is what I find objectionable about people grilling Tim so mercilously when he seems to be doing quite a lot and has probably been instructed by his lawyer, his insurance company, and their lawyers to shut up. Even so....here he is getting grilled and actually still commenting on the issue as he tries to make it right. He even posted an email from Stu in which they seem completely cool with one another....yet the sewing circle continues its nasty chatter. Further, if we are really going to get controversial, I also have to wonder why the present grilling is taking place now when i don't (thankfully) recall such venomous action during the Punki incident. I can't help but wonder why? Race? Gender of the hunter? Profile of CB? Socioeconomic class of the victim?

As for PHs shooting safety, I once put a follow up shot into a wounded big game animal that we had been tracking for roughly half an hour. The animal was down but trying to rise when I shot for the second time and had slumped onto his chest when i heard a loud boom emanating from 15 feet behind me and three feet to my right. I was not amused.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
How many people have said precisely this, and they were caught totally unprepared when the actual shit hit that fan?

Amen to that!

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu: ...one individual got killed in the process of cleaning up the mess of made of a buffalo (client was more concerned on a replacement PH so he could finish his hunt)

I find this most disturbing. How does one continue with the hunt after an incident such as this???? This tells me all I need to know about the character of the person.

Hard to believe that this is true Bill! Wow.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill C:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu: ...one individual got killed in the process of cleaning up the mess of made of a buffalo (client was more concerned on a replacement PH so he could finish his hunt)

I find this most disturbing. How does one continue with the hunt after an incident such as this???? This tells me all I need to know about the character of the person.

Just asked my wife if I was insured for death in the field? Apparently not and we can only afford medical insurance which with two kids comes to $6,500 a year. Combined the boys schooling is itself in excess of $30,000 etc and so I would say that the average PH like myself cannot afford it Premiums would be sky high in our profession.

I must say I much admire all you chaps that do not banter but reach deep into your pockets for a PH and a family in need. And do it with out question or justification.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fairgame:
Just asked my wife if I was insured for death in the field? Apparently not and we can only afford medical insurance which with two kids comes to $6,500 a year. Combined the boys schooling is itself in excess of $30,000 etc and so I would say that the average PH like myself cannot afford it Premiums would be sky high in our profession.

Andrew,
Out of curiosity what would a policy cost that would cover Accidental Death & Dismemberment for a PH?

This entire matter has gotten my attention. I have reviewed my own insurance. My personal liability policies would cover me for anything that happened world wide. However, there is a specific exclusion for anything related to a business or profession. If Tim's personal policies are anything like mine, this act would be excluded from coverage. However, one does have to wonder about the employers insurance contracts.

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
The Stu Taylor thread raised some questions for me. It is tragic and will haunt both men the rest of their lives. The opinion of the AR community seems clear since an accidental discharge occurred.
My question is would the opinion of the group be the same if an animal was gut shot by a hunter and the PH badly injured in follow-up? The John Greef story comes to mind. The results are equally tragic yet it doesn't seem to be treated the same.
I plan to call my insurance agent to see just what my various insurance policies will and won't cover. I'm sure the "you're not covered" phrase would be heard about the wounded animal follow-up but I don't know about the gunshot situation.
There has to be a way to protect the Phs by insurance. It costs about $300 for medical emergency insurance and I would think the probability of it being used would be far greater than loss of income from injury. I would gladly pay an extra $300 on my next trip to ease what Tim Herald is probably experiencing.

There is a big difference between an accidental shooting and an attack by a wounded dangerous animal.

1. It is usually a legal requirement for a wounded animal to be dispatched, especially a dangerous game species. As they are a danger to the general population in the area. The professional is usually obligated to do everything possible to finish off the animal.

2. Interestingly many PHs refuse to take the client along for the finishing off of the animal. The reason is they may consider the client is more of a risk than the wounded game animal. May be the case or not?

3. There is direct causality between a client shooting a person, unlike a client shooting a cape buffalo which then later injures or kills the PH. But probably under common law, there is still causality if that buffalo later injures or kills someone eg a local villager. Especially if all reasonable attempts were not taken to kill the beast. Negligence, could be a consideration. But of course Mr Mpofu the subsistence farmer probably could not pursue any legal action. The PH? There is responsibility on the PH to ensure the beast was/is killed I would think as a professional as well, eg follow up shots, tracking down the wounded beast.

I think most PH's would be pissed off to be injured by a wounded beast, but accept it as part of the professional, the duty to correct the client's ffff-ups.

Getting shot is a bit more direct. Any negligence involved? A pure accident?

If the latter, an aweful thing to happen.

Taking out insurance, does not change any responsibility, it merely reduces the monetary risk to any of the individuals. Like saying, "well I accidentally burned your house down, but I am not responsible because you did not insure your house for fire ..."

I know that I will be extra diligent personally to ensure I have adequate insurance eg through shooting associations at home, and also appropriate travel insurance when hunting abroad. When I hunted in Europe in October I made sure I had travel insurance which covered hunting and shooting, which could be purchased through a shooting association insurance agency. Which did incur a higher premium than otherwise. I took it out to cover myself in case of accidents, but it also needs to cover third persons and property in an accident involving shooting and hunting. Other than the anguish of injuring someone, it has the potential to bankrupt a person.

Commercial activities are a completely different manner. Hunting while conducting commercial activities such as filming for profit, usually would need a different sort of policy by the business, I would guess. It is pretty normal for any responsible business to have adequate third party liability insurance.

My comments are only my opinions.

Outfitters and PHs should buy their own protective insurances.....disability, medical, global rescue and life insurance. That is part of doing business. I am certain if all the outfitters/PHs group together...they would get reasonable pricing for insurance coverage from many of the worldwide insurance companies.

In addition, hunters may purchase additional coverage in the same insurance company as an umbrella.

It is a lot easier for all parties having protective insurance when tragedy strikes?

I do not want to hear that it is too expensive or cannot get a policy....insurance are hurting for business just like everyone else in these hard economic times.


dale

quote:

Originally posted by NitroX:
Taking out insurance, does not change any responsibility, it merely reduces the monetary risk to any of the individuals. Like saying, "well I accidentally burned your house down, but I am not responsible because you did not insure your house for fire ..."

The problem with focusing just on legal concepts of liability and fault is that your ability to recover is dependent on the wherewithal of the culprit. If your house is burned down by Donald Trump, you should be in good shape, sue him, establish liability and damages and collect your judgment. If your house is burned down by a homeless man, great, sue him, establish liability and damages and then what . . . how do you get blood out of a turnip. All of which brings it back to us and our individual responsibility to take care of ourselves in the first instance. We insure against events like this because we cannot pick who is going to burn our house down, run into us on the freeway . . . accidently shoot us in a tragic accident. And in some cases, our house burns down because lightning strikes it or we get hurt for some reason that has nothing to do with anyone else being at fault.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill C:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu: ...one individual got killed in the process of cleaning up the mess of made of a buffalo (client was more concerned on a replacement PH so he could finish his hunt)

I find this most disturbing. How does one continue with the hunt after an incident such as this???? This tells me all I need to know about the character of the person.

I was stunned as well. Wow.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
This entire matter has gotten my attention. I have reviewed my own insurance. My personal liability policies would cover me for anything that happened world wide. However, there is a specific exclusion for anything related to a business or profession. If Tim's personal policies are anything like mine, this act would be excluded from coverage. However, one does have to wonder about the employers insurance contracts.

I would be surprised if Tim is actually anyone's employee; my guess is he is 1099'd.

Therein MIGHT lie the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
At the risk of torquing others off since I seem to be doing a good job of that lately, I think the primary responsibility for addressing the situation falls on the affected individual, the person injured or hurt. Let me give you an example, if I am in a car accident tomorrow caused by another driver that was intoxicated, and I am killed or seriously injured in the accident, the obligation to ensure that myself and my family is taken care of is mine. I address that obligation through savings, health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance and similar means. For me to depend on the other person for responsibility is irresponsible. I think the same situation exists in spades for someone in a profession like professional hunting where the risks are obvious and well known. It is incumbent on the PH to take actions to protect himself and his family and no one should be looking to someone else has having the primary responsibility to make the situation right. I am not suggesting that the drunk driver in my example or the client in a hunting example does not have their own set of obligations and responsibilities for the accident, but I believe that those are ancillary and the primary responsibility is on the affected person. Today we are too quick to want to assign responsibility to someone else every time something goes wrong, instead of acknowledging our own responsibility and taking accountability for our own well being.

Okay, now folks can call me an asshole, hunting show lackey, etc.

I have no problem whatsoever agreeing with this.

PH's know what they are getting into. I have heard many stories about PH's with clients that where just plain dangerous with guns. My first question was "did you send them packing?" Every single time the answer was NO.

People know or should know the dangers of their chosen profession and should prepare accordingly.

Now...........would I help? Hell yes, I'd do everything I could to make it right, or as right as possible.

.

After several long years of heated debate regarding the "individual mandate" provisions of Obamacare, I can imagine a group policy for PHs sponsored by a professional association would be received much the same way.

Some young bucks will say "I'm 10 feet tall and bulletproof, and I ain't going to pay for somebody elses vulnerabilities." And then you are back to individual coverage...

Secondly, as a young man I too guided hunting clients - and over a 4 year stint had shotguns discharged at lethal ranges where the shot passed witin 1 foot of my person NINE TIMES. I never gave any thought to insurance, assuming my employer would make things right (stupid me). In retrospect, I too felt 10' tall and bulletproof - and was negligent in providing for my family. Had I been maimed or killed, my wife and kids would have been dependent on the benevolence of strangers and family.

With the benefit of age and perspective, I realize that was a gamble I should not have taken. At the time it seemed ok - and everything worked out. Seems like that is the prevalent attitude of PHs - and while I wouldn't recommend that tact, I understand.