quote:

Originally posted by bwanamrm:
One other thing to remember, all lawyers are not ambulance chasing plaintiff lawyers. The legal profession has numerous areas of specialization and many of those posting here may have never even tried a case in court. So painting all lawyers with such a broad brush is a disservice to an honorable profession we need to adhere to the rule of law.

I think the main issue that troubles me here is many came to the aid of a fallen PH when an accident in the field caused him harm. We were told he needed help with medical attention and living expenses. Immediately, two great men took action, followed by others who wanted to help. My fear is the action Stu is taking will jeopardize efforts in the future to raise funds like this again. Look at young Ant, who may or may not be worse off. He COULD use our help now.

I remember this group's efforts years ago to help a "combat" veteran who posted here to go on safari. Monies were raised, fine rifles were sold on his behalf and he took advantage of everyone and treated them quite shabbily. The Forum never forgot or forgave and it should NOT HAVE. Russell was a farce and completely devoid of character. I do hope we do not suffer the same fate after this incident.

I know I will be more cautious in the future...

But that is just me.

Merry Christmas all! And Peace be with you! Sincerely!!!

Not trying to be a post hog this Christmas morning but I have to echo the sentiments that this will have a negative effect on future fund raising for those in need. Please take a moment to reflect on you personal good fortune and visit the CMS Benefit Auction to benefit Anthony Howland. He lost an arm in a tragic hunting accident.

This in my opinion is when AR is at it's finest.

Merry Christmas

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by bwanamrm:
One other thing to remember, all lawyers are not ambulance chasing plaintiff lawyers. The legal profession has numerous areas of specialization and many of those posting here may have never even tried a case in court. So painting all lawyers with such a broad brush is a disservice to an honorable profession we need to adhere to the rule of law.

I think the main issue that troubles me here is many came to the aid of a fallen PH when an accident in the field caused him harm. We were told he needed help with medical attention and living expenses. Immediately, two great men took action, followed by others who wanted to help. My fear is the action Stu is taking will jeopardize efforts in the future to raise funds like this again. Look at young Ant, who may or may not be worse off. He COULD use our help now.

I remember this group's efforts years ago to help a "combat" veteran who posted here to go on safari. Monies were raised, fine rifles were sold on his behalf and he took advantage of everyone and treated them quite shabbily. The Forum never forgot or forgave and it should NOT HAVE. Russell was a farce and completely devoid of character. I do hope we do not suffer the same fate after this incident.

I know I will be more cautious in the future...

But that is just me.

Merry Christmas all! And Peace be with you! Sincerely!!!

Not trying to be a post hog this Christmas morning but I have to echo the sentiments that this will have a negative effect on future fund raising for those in need. Please take a moment to reflect on you personal good fortune and visit the CMS Benefit Auction to benefit Anthony Howland. He lost an arm in a tragic hunting accident.

This in my opinion is when AR is at it's finest.

Merry Christmas

Jeff

Merry Christmas to everyone!

I had some new bedroom furniture delivered yesterday for my sons bedroom. The delivery / set-up guys were hard working and courteous. I gave them a nice tip, feeling bad they had to work on Christmas eve.

After they left, my wife and I were discussing this Stu Taylor thing and decided that we are going to begin to give a much higher percentage of our household income to charity.

So, in our specific case, it worked polar. We love to help less fortunate. Philanthropy is why I got into SCI in the beginning.

I won't let this sour me even though THIS situation sucks.

Steve

+1 Steve.

I saw this happen on another site years ago where a man had a tragedy happen in his life. The people raised around 25000.00. When he received it he went down and bought a new truck.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
+1 Steve.

+2

Merry Christmas everyone!!!

I would like to apologize to the lawyers whom I smeared in an earlier post. I was out of line and I know that most lawyers are good people.

I am still upset that a man who lost his livelihood is being vilified for utilizing a system that was put in place by lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
I would like to apologize to the lawyers whom I smeared in an earlier post. I was out of line and I know that most lawyers are good people.

I am still upset that a man who lost his livelihood is being vilified for utilizing a system that was put in place by lawyers.

No offense taken. I hate many lawyers myself.

To avoid bringing shame and embarrassment to my family, my Mom stills believes I am a piano player in a brothel.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
I would like to apologize to the lawyers whom I smeared in an earlier post. I was out of line and I know that most lawyers are good people.

I am still upset that a man who lost his livelihood is being vilified for utilizing a system that was put in place by lawyers.

No offense taken. I hate many lawyers myself.

To avoid bringing shame and embarrassment to my family, my Mom stills believes I am a piano player in a brothel.

You're not the pianist there? I always thought that was you.(funny post)

I happen to believe in the big Three.

Lawyers, Guns and Money.

They solve a lot.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:


To avoid bringing shame and embarrassment to my family, my Mom stills believes I am a piano player in a brothel.

I needed that one today Mike...thanks my friend

Merry Christmas!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
I happen to believe in the big Three.

Lawyers, Guns and Money.

They solve a lot.

Jeff

Merry Christmas Jeff!!!

quote:

I am still upset that a man who lost his livelihood is being vilified for utilizing a system that was put in place by lawyers.

I wouldn't use the word vilify. Stu was given a lot in some cases by people who couldn't really afford it to take care of his family and medical bills etc. He chose instead to use those funds to embark on a fool's mission to try and sue the guy who is done the most to try and help and do right by him. Those of us who worked on his behalf do not support this action and have moved on.

This is signed, done and dusted.

Jeff

I feel compassion for Stu.

I have once in my life been injured to the point of not being able to provide for my family. It is a helpless, hollow, empty, desperate feeling. And that state of mind is not conducive to even tempered logical thought.

With that in mind I see this as a desperate act from a desperate man. All logic and reason has been thrown out the window. But that does not mean that I forgive his actions. He has quit literally shut the door to one and only ray of hope and his number one supporter in all this.

I hope that there is decent outcome for all. I see no way for that to happen now. This very thing should be kept in mind before another outpouring of sympathy is given to the next injured PH or staff member. These funds need to be carefully structured so that the money is used as intended.

quote:

Originally posted by surestrike:
I feel compassion for Stu.

I have once in my life been injured to the point of not being able to provide for my family. It is a helpless, hollow, empty, desperate feeling. And that state of mind is not conducive to even tempered logical thought.

With that in mind I see this as a desperate act from a desperate man. All logic and reason has been thrown out the window. But that does not mean that I forgive his actions. He has quit literally shut the door to one and only ray of hope and his number one supporter in all this.

I hope that there is decent outcome for all. I see no way for that to happen now. This very thing should be kept in mind before another outpouring of sympathy is given to the next injured PH or staff member. These funds need to be carefully structured so that the money is used as intended.

I agree with everything you've shared...most especially in bold...this is what I can take away from this incident and make it better next time around for certain...hence it is time to move forward knowing better now

I don't think vilify is the right word either. It is a bad decision that is not likely to put him in a better place.

People in bad situations often do not think clearly. Not to mention that it is far easier to see clearly from the outside looking in.

This is a bad decision, no doubt. I still feel bad for him. I have, however, learned a lesson.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I don't think vilify is the right word either. It is a bad decision that is not likely to put him in a better place.

People in bad situations often do not think clearly. Not to mention that it is far easier to see clearly from the outside looking in.

This is a bad decision, no doubt. I still feel bad for him. I have, however, learned a lesson.

I would go a step further and say it is a stupid decision. This is wasting precious capital and a lot of goodwill from people who donated the capital to Stu to try win a remote near impossible legal outcome.

There is a very good reason for contingency litigation - its risk sharing and limits irrelevant lawsuits because no plaintiff lawyer is going to take a case with a remote shot of winning.

What Stu is doing is transferring this limited resources which were given for this health and welfare to a lawyer who is taking a legal hail mary pass while getting paid upfront. The lawyer has no skin in the game and Stu has already been skinned once before and is going to get skinned again when this is all said and done. I hope I am wrong but I don't think I will be.

The lesson for me is clear - one should not shy from giving and helping people in need. However, a close eye needs to kept on what happens with the funds. Really good charities are as good at allocation as they are at fund raising. Bill Gates foundation is a perfect example on a large scale.

I for one am going to give some additional money to the local Baptist church. I am not religious. But my Mom who is (but is not a Baptist or Christian) volunteers there twice a week and they do help people in need.

Larry, Andrew, Roland and a lot of other members have done an admiral job to help someone in need . Regardless of Stu's decision we should not shy from helping the next person in need.

Mike

Mike,

Unfortunately there were other initiatives afoot that would have provided a great deal of additional revenue for Stu. Sadly those have now been quashed.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I don't think vilify is the right word either. It is a bad decision that is not likely to put him in a better place.

People in bad situations often do not think clearly. Not to mention that it is far easier to see clearly from the outside looking in.

This is a bad decision, no doubt. I still feel bad for him. I have, however, learned a lesson.

I would go a step further and say it is a stupid decision. This is wasting precious capital and a lot of goodwill from people who donated the capital to Stu to try win a remote near impossible legal outcome.

There is a very good reason for contingency litigation - its risk sharing and limits irrelevant lawsuits because no plaintiff lawyer is going to take a case with a remote shot of winning.

What Stu is doing is transferring this limited resources which were given for this health and welfare to a lawyer who is taking a legal hail mary pass while getting paid upfront. The lawyer has no skin in the game and Stu has already been skinned once before and is going to get skinned again when this is all said and done. I hope I am wrong but I don't think I will be.

The lesson for me is clear - one should not shy from giving and helping people in need. However, a close eye needs to kept on what happens with the funds. Really good charities are as good at allocation as they are at fund raising. Bill Gates foundation is a perfect example on a large scale.

I for one am going to give some additional money to the local Baptist church. I am not religious. But my Mom who is (but is not a Baptist or Christian) volunteers there twice a week and they do help people in need.

Larry, Andrew, Roland and a lot of other members have done an admiral job to help someone in need . Regardless of Stu's decision we should not shy from helping the next person in need.

Mike

Mike:

I agree with you 100%.

It is a sad and unfortunate event. Stu will assuredly be worse off after these actions.

The only intangible I can see is that perhaps a lawsuit might sway a claims adjuster somewhere . It shouldn't but it might.

Yes, indeed.

Insurance companies never contest valid claims.

They always show up at a legitimate claimant's door, immediately when needed and summoned, with their checkbooks open.

Usually, all one needs to do is give them the correct name and dollar number, so that they can properly fill in the blanks after "Pay to the order of . . ."

And they always pay one hundred cents on the dollar of every claim.

Always.

Never is anyone forced to sue any of their insured parties in order to recover on a rightly and properly insured claim.

Never.

Perish the thought.

Of course they don't operate that way. That has nothing to do with the issue of a lawsuit against Tim being successful.

It is as it is but I for sure do not like the thought that my money is used to sue an unlucky fellow hunter.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:
Mike,

Unfortunately there were other initiatives afoot that would have provided a great deal of additional revenue for Stu. Sadly those have now been quashed.

Jeff

That's the sad part for Stu and family, IMO. I think he got some bad legal advice, and took it???

But I don't think Stu's decision should have any real negative impact on future incidents/fund raising, should this sort of thing happen again to someone else. Although not as capable of giving as some, we helped a bit here with the observer fees (once I finally figured out what was going on - sorry to much out of town stuff lately) and we also donated a fully guided Colorado Deer hunt during the John Greeff incident a couple of years ago. As a matter of fact, the hunter/AR member just completed the hunt this year. My point is, we can't let one bad decision keep us from helping the next guy. I know I for one would like to think if it came down to it - help would be there for me/my family too, if really needed.

Gentlemen,

The one organization that was doing a great job of collecting money for this and similar incidents, has dropped it like a hot potato as soon as they learnt the change of direction.

Stu got terrible advice, and sadly took it.

I have absolutely no regrets in participating in helping him, and I hope he might have a change of heart about this, and use the money where it will do most good, instead of paying a lawyer on a case I am almost certain is going to fail.

Also, Stu might bear in mind what would have happened if this was the other way around, and he shot Tim accidently.

It is quite possible that Stu might recover from Tim's insurer on his claim.

Too many are speculating here without knowledge of the facts or applicable law.

The procedural issues are significant, but not necessarily insurmountable.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
It is quite possible that Stu might recover from Tim's insurer on his claim.

Too many are speculating here without knowledge of the facts or applicable law.

The procedural issues are significant, but not necessarily insurmountable.

And that's the dice Stu has decided to roll. He will see not a dime more from me.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
It is quite possible that Stu might recover from Tim's insurer on his claim.

Too many are speculating here without knowledge of the facts or applicable law.

The procedural issues are significant, but not necessarily insurmountable.

Mike,

According to a lawyer friend of mine, taking into considerations what had happened, Stu stands to gain absolutely ZERO from this case.

The only people who are going to make money are his lawyers and the lawyers Tim will have to use to defend himself.

This is going to turn into an utter disaster for Stu, I am sorry to say.

He certainly does not deserve it, but that his own choice!

I can totally empathize with Tim's situation, but who can't see that $100k in donations isn't going to cover even a small percentage of the medical expenses, not to mention Stu's ability to provide for himself and his family? If Tim's insurance provided coverage for such an event (and it may have), Stu would have been a fool not to attempt to seek compensation, with or without Tim's assistance.

Regardless of what some on this forum may think about lawyers and the legal profession (and I'm not an attorney BTW), there's something seriously wrong with a business that can't provide adequate protections of its employees in this day and age. At a minimum, insurance coverage should be provided for the peace of mind of all concerned, the PH (and other employees) as well as the client.

For years now I've heard about the inadequacies of the legal systems in African countries. If that's the case, then why can't those involved in the business of hunting band together to obtain proper coverage through a country(s) where they believe insurance can be properly obtained and coverage is enforced through the rule of law that all parties can rely upon?

With all the talk about "professionalization" among PH members, it sure sounded as though these injuries were rare and when they did occur, those involved were properly cared for in all manner. If that's not true and contributions to "benefits" such as this do little more than place lipstick on the face of a pig, count me out!

If monies donated towards "Stu's needs" include legitimate legal needs to address losses associated with insurance policies that were purchased with the understanding they provided this type of coverage, then more power to him. Tim's "efforts" to encourage his insurers to do the right thing doesn't mean squat, compared to having the case decided in a court of law.

Say what you will about lawyers, IMHO their credibility is certainly better than insurers and their ability to hold the later accountable has merit.

Pulicords, we are generally in agreement.

And as for Stu's case in particular, the world is a very small place these days. It does not take a terribly strong nexus for any court to establish jurisdiction.

Without a thorough understanding of all of the relevant facts and the law that will be applied in this case, no one can say, with any certainty, that Stu will not succeed, either procedurally or on the merits.

And if Tim is handling this properly, he will be defended by lawyers retained and paid by his insurer.

Prudent people - and it appears as though Tim was prudent - carry liability insurance to cover risks and exposures like this one. Anyone who unintentionally causes injury to another, and carries insurance against that risk, should expect that this kind of thing might occur.

That is because commencing litigation is all too often necessary in order to enforce a claim. Even family members injured in the same car accident - while traveling in the same car - sometimes end up having to sue one another in order to get their own insurance company to pay an injury claim. Sad, but true.

Of course, I am burdened by a terribly expensive Ivy League law school education, so I may be mistaken in this matter!

In any case, I will not second-guess or condemn Stu with respect to his decision. Nor do I have any regrets about the contributions that I have made to his and his family's continued well-being.

This incident was a horrible, awful thing. Worse for Stu, of course, than anyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:
Say what you will about lawyers, IMHO their credibility is certainly better than insurers and their ability to hold the later accountable has merit.

Thank you, thank you. So we now know we rate at least above insurance companies and presumably Congress, since any profession, no matter how reprehensible rates better than Congress.

Having been a lawyer for over 31 years, I think I now may have heard it all. NEVER have I heard of money being raised in good faith for the physical recovery and personal needs of an individual being used to clandestinely fuel litigation against the very man trying to assist in the injured's recovery. And, to those who have said here on AR that an individual can use that money however he wishes once he gets it, is pure unadulterated bullshit when taken in the context of why it was being raised. The money raised for Stu Taylor was being raised to assist him in his physical recovery and personal needs-not in any way, shape or form, to fuel litigation against Tim Herald. I do hope that Jumbo Moore is not tied into any of this. I know Jumbo and have had a deep respect for him for many years.

UEG, maybe I missed something, but that was not my understanding of how this was going to work.

I did not understand, or assume, that there would be any strings at all attached to the funds I contributed, except that they were going to Stu Taylor to assist him and his family in a time of dire need.

I wouldn't have wanted anything more restrictive than that, anyway. You and others are free to set me straight on this, however. Maybe I wasn't paying attention because it didn't matter to me.

I know nothing about the type of insurance Tim might have and what the provisions of coverage are.

I do know that when Paul Newman in "The Verdict" called the defendant's insurers and their attorneys "the princes of darkness", the title, in my experience, rang only too true.

Gilbert's law: Insurance companies are not in the business of paying just claims, they are in the business of making money.

That said, to get to an insurance company's pocket which (not incidentally) took an alleged tortfeasor's money with the promise to defend against unjust claims and to pay just ones, the claimant, in most every jurisdiction I know, must file suit against the policy holder (here, Tim) and not directly against the insurer... with the caveat that an insurer who knows it is going to lose might want to cut its legal costs and therefore pay upon notice that a suit will be forthcoming if demands aren't met.

So, even if Tim requests that the insurer pay for the claim, the insurer has the right, under the policy, to refuse payment in most instances of questionable liability, that is, until a court orders them to pay up.

So, as I read the above posts, it seems that Tim is asking that his insurer pay up, but the insurer is refusing.... which may be perfectly reasonable if the policy doesn't cover the loss, or it may be that the insurer is practicing the dark arts of the night (a practice all too usual)... i.e., we ain't paying because the guy can't afford the effort from Zimbabwe and if we stall long enough, the injured party will lose interest, lose money, etc. and we save it (whether we owe it or not).

So, unless Stu sues Tim, the only vehicle both Stu or Tim may have to get the insurer to pay a just claim is litigation against Tim... and we'd really have to review the policy (or policies if there are multiple prospective defendants) to determine if such a suit is worthwhile or justified. Anything else is speculation (informed speculation, but speculation, non the less)... and my speculation is that it is a waste of money and I certainly wouldn't have sent some serious money to Zimbabwe well before the prints were even offered if I'd know where it was going.

All that said, I had finished putting my Baldy print on the wall in my conference room not 40 seconds before I opened this thread and read for the first time about the monies raised perhaps going to fund litigation. I'd opened AR to thank everyone involved for their hard work, selflessness and to express my satisfaction with the print.... heck, "satisfaction" isn't enough... my "joy" with the print... It's that good!

And, now this crap.

Would I have donated the $750 if I knew it was going to litigation. No.

Is some lawyer taking advantage of Stu... maybe.

Can Tim make his insurance company pay a claim, just or otherwise unless he's served with papers? Probably not. But, heck, there is a much better way to finance a suit, if justified, than taking money from folks who believe it is for a different purpose.

Should Stu have told us about the funds going to sue Tim. If that's a fact... Hell, yes! I'm not poor, but at Christmas, $750 is real money.

So, I got a great print, but I feel a bit sad. The joy of opening the shipment and putting the print on the wall was certainly tarnished. I hope, in time, I'll be able to look at the lion and not think about my unknowingly financing someone's lawsuit, and perhaps a foolish lawsuit, at that.

Three issues here:

1. A recklessly discharged bullet hit Stu Taylor, causing grievous bodily harm.

2. Stu taylor did not take the responsibility to have insurance to cover himself for such an unforeseen incident.
If Stu had insurance, his insurance Co. would bear the cost of medical and cost of [potential] impending claim against Herald.

3. AR fund raising for Stu did not stipulate [or limit] where the raised funds could be spent.


All three of the above situations came about not by accident, but each because of a lack of consideration and forethought.

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:
If monies donated towards "Stu's needs" include legitimate legal needs to address losses associated with insurance policies that were purchased with the understanding they provided this type of coverage, then more power to him. Tim's "efforts" to encourage his insurers to do the right thing doesn't mean squat, compared to having the case decided in a court of law.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

Prudent people - and it appears as though Tim was prudent - carry liability insurance to cover risks and exposures like this one. Anyone who unintentionally causes injury to another, and carries insurance against that risk, should expect that this kind of thing might occur.

That is because commencing litigation is all too often necessary in order to enforce a claim. Even family members injured in the same car accident - while traveling in the same car - sometimes end up having to sue one another in order to get their own insurance company to pay an injury claim. Sad, but true.

. . . and me stipulating and limiting where and what my wife spends money on absolutely means it will be spent in the manner stipulated or limited. What an asinine comment. No stipulation or limit would restrict in reality what Stu chose to spend the funds on. I think your posts largely represent the product of your emoticon and are clearly just made to incite. Do something constructive for a change.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . and me stipulating and limiting where and what my wife spends money on absolutely means it will be spent in the manner stipulated or limited. What an asinine comment. No stipulation or limit would restrict in reality what Stu chose to spend the funds on.

After my friend got taken to the cleaners by one woman [his own foolish fault], the next woman that came along he was even more generous to.
Why one might ask??,...well he is by nature a good hearted guy, but no longer as foolish as before.
The difference being this time, she unlike the prior woman, was not allowed to freely withdraw and squander large sums of money without account.
This time around, if the new woman wanted a house on the water, he simply said go choose one and I will buy it.
He signed and controlled all the large asset purchases....under such stipulation, the new woman enjoyed and received much much more than the previous thieving kind.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Three issues here:

1. A recklessly discharged bullet hit Stu Taylor, causing grievous bodily harm.

2. Stu taylor did not take the responsibility to have insurance to cover himself for such an unforeseen incident.
If Stu had insurance, his insurance Co. would bear the cost of medical and cost of [potential] impending claim against Herald.

3. AR fund raising for Stu did not stipulate [or limit] where the raised funds could be spent.


All three of the above situations came about not by accident, but each because of a lack of consideration and forethought.

quote:

Originally posted by Pulicords:
If monies donated towards "Stu's needs" include legitimate legal needs to address losses associated with insurance policies that were purchased with the understanding they provided this type of coverage, then more power to him. Tim's "efforts" to encourage his insurers to do the right thing doesn't mean squat, compared to having the case decided in a court of law.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:

Prudent people - and it appears as though Tim was prudent - carry liability insurance to cover risks and exposures like this one. Anyone who unintentionally causes injury to another, and carries insurance against that risk, should expect that this kind of thing might occur.

That is because commencing litigation is all too often necessary in order to enforce a claim. Even family members injured in the same car accident - while traveling in the same car - sometimes end up having to sue one another in order to get their own insurance company to pay an injury claim. Sad, but true.

This from some one who contributed exactly dick to the above....

Jeff

Trax,

You are a troll not an attorney. So why don't you shut up please....

If you check into it trolls and attorneys have a different skill set.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

This from some one who contributed exactly dick to the above....

I dont contribute to commercial business operators that fail in their basic duty & responsibility to themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Trax:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

This from some one who contributed exactly dick to the above....

I dont contribute to commercial business operators that fail in their basic duty & responsibility to themselves.

Luckily for you that includes the homeless, the disenfranchised, the elderly, the challanged, the ill, the poor or anyone else.

Sleep well.

I think Conrad Everts exposed us to a term that certainly sums you up.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
So, I got a great print, but I feel a bit sad. The joy of opening the shipment and putting the print on the wall was certainly tarnished. I hope, in time, I'll be able to look at the lion and not think about my unknowingly financing someone's lawsuit, and perhaps a foolish lawsuit, at that.

Man am I lucky!! I will be forthcoming in admitting I donated to Stu (this time)in order to get a copy of Andrew's print.

I refuse to look at that wonderful piece of expressive artwork and see Stu. I see the shit eating grin on Andrew's face when we both found my Lion already dead in thick cover and that is what I will always see when looking at it.