https://tdn.com/news/local/law...50-804545d0e8a6.html



Lawsuit proceeds on behalf of Toutle man killed on hunting trip

Alex Bruell alex.bruell@tdn.com 4 hrs ago



Five years after her husband was accidentally shot and killed during a bear hunting trip in Canada, a Toutle woman will go to trial this fall against the guide company she blames for his death.

Between 2009 and 2014, avid hunter and Toutle native Jeffrey Cooper made several visits to northern British Columbia through Wistaria Guiding, an unincorporated hunting business specializing in guided hunting trips for moose, bears, mountain goats, wolf, upland birds and fish.

But when a grizzly bear, which Cooper shot and wounded the night before, came charging out of the brush the morning of May 26, 2014, Cooper and two guides reacted instantly and fired, dropping the bear. Cooper, standing in front of one of the guides, was inadvertently struck and killed, according to Canadian court documents.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police pronounced Cooper dead at the scene, RCMP Corporal Madonna Saunderson said. While the case had not been officially closed as of this month, the Canadian government has not pursued criminal charges against any of the guides involved, Saunderson said.

Shirley Cooper filed a lawsuit against Wistaria Guiding owners Gary and Julie Blackwell, as well as employees/hunting guides Derrick Blackwell and Robert Cork, in 2015. Her suit alleged the company was negligent in the death of her husband by, among other claims, failing to properly control the firearms and to ensure the members of the hunting party were not in each other’s line of fire. The case is currently set to go to trial Nov. 18 in Vancouver, Canada.

Both Shirley Cooper and a representative for Wistaria Guiding declined to comment when called. An attorney for Wistaria Guiding could not be reached.

Wistaria initially asked for the suit to be dismissed because Cooper had signed a liability waiver for a previous hunting trip the year before, according to Canadian court documents. But a judge ruled the case could go on.

“They were, quite literally, two different hunting seasons,” British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Nigel Kent found in late 2017, and “the 2014 hunt required a new hunting licence.”

Jeffrey Cooper had participated in two moose hunts with the company in 2009 and 2012 and an unsuccessful grizzly hunt in 2013. He signed a liability release for that 2013 hunt assuming “all risks of personal injury or death … while participating in the said guided excursion.”

At the end of the hunt, Blackwell offered to let Cooper return the next year, free of charge, since Cooper was a good client and he wanted to offer him another chance to hunt a grizzly, according to Canadian court documents.

Cooper was not given another release to sign for that hunt, court documents said. The Blackwells argued there was a mutual assumption that the 2014 hunt was a continuation of the unsuccessful hunt the year before, and that was covered under the previous agreement.

Kent dismissed Wistaria’s claim, allowing Cooper’s suit to move forward.

Unfortunate.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada...th-lawsuit-1.4394010

Plaintiff's argument is that no liability waiver was signed for the hunt that did him in. So they argue the outfitter is liable.

Implied liabilities? Implied risks?

Hunt dangerous things and dangerous things can happen. I say this with sincere respect for her loss, just an all around terrible situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Angus Morrison:
Hunt dangerous things and dangerous things can happen. I say this with sincere respect for her loss, just an all around terrible situation.

Yup. Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict the reaction of even seasoned hunters when things go bad and DG is involved. Some totally lose their minds and dangerous stuff happens. Others just freeze.

The guide panicked. Pretty much the exact same thing I mentioned. Who would ever predict a guide would panick?

Hmmmmmm. I'm curious, Does the guide "panicking" bring liability to the company or the guide? Hitting the gas and not the break still makes me liable for a car accident.
Not having a signed release is troublesome for the defense.

Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

While poor legal judgement, the lack of a current release doesn’t surprise me, speaking as an outfitter also in BC who’s around a lot of Grizz. Canada is a much less litigious society than stateside for better or worse, it’s nowhere near as common to sue people here. It is of course still a risk as the court case shows but many here being a much smaller and quieter country won’t be familiar with the legal risks as much as Americans would be. I’m sure I haven’t had current releases many times with repeat clients that become friends, the hunting relationship relaxes as do things like liability releases. Not smart, just real. Again all around a horrible situation.

I’m a slow learner, this took me too long. AJ just officially relegated his opinion to junk in my eyes. Neatly done in one judgmental and impressively uninformed post.

Clients to be kept at arms length? Maybe not easy but it's business. Wounding fees? Normal industry practice for a client to be in on dispatching wounded game?

In BC the client only need be within range of verbal communication, in a normal, unamplified voice.

Yes, it is completely normal for a trusted client to be with you in following up their animal, even dangerous game, and they do and should have the opportunity to finish their hunt within the bounds of reason. Grizzlies are true dangerous game, more so than cape buffalo frankly in what is only my opinion based on hunting buffalo sparingly and grizzly extensively. I was at the front following up my own Lion with the PH just off my shoulder, and was able to finish the hunt. Grizzly hunts are no different.

If all a dangerous game client is presented with is the chance to shoot an unaware animal in a natural shooting gallery, and they are to be cut out of all of the risky situations, lawyers have really killed off all the adventure in hunting, and life frankly.

Someone seems to be excelling at deleting their posts.

An example of a wounding policy. Seems fair to everyone involved as well as the quarry -



The client takes the responsibilities that he can place shots accurately at ranges he deems to be reasonable and his choice of caliber and ammo are up to the task.

Not sure exactly what angle of the discussion you’re aiming at, you mean to say the client should be off the follow up for a mucked shot?

My struggle with discussions around incidents like this is people form strong opinions with almost no background, on events that had so many moving parts it is almost impossible to apportion blame percentages.

Hunt dangerous things and dangerous things can happen. All in all, a terrible situation for everyone involved. The commentary these events attract reminds me of criticisms of flight crews in emergencies, police, and military in dynamic and lethal situations that change in a split second. Unless we were there, all speculation is just toilet paper for the bull.

Responsibilities all around that can get shifted as a situation changes. Needs to be an agreement then on how the situation goes down to prevent a tragedy.

I feel like we’re speaking legalese now, broad unspecific statements on a matter that has no single solution aside from not hunting. Those who’ve hunted a lot of Grizz and Browns, or anything dangerous, will know what I mean when I say sometimes, for all the planning in the world, things just go to hell.

I know nothing aside from the basics of the situation here and can only express my sympathy for all involved and affected. I’ll have to take a breath and step away from the subject to avoid an argument that has no solution, situations like this just are a bit too close to home to ignore some of the commentary on.

Outcome of a special operation varies dependent on the players involved. Send in the clowns vs a SEAL team for example. Move, shoot, communicate.
Don't run to your death.

Very sad to hear this.

I have followed many wounded, danger7game animals.

Sometimes in rather undesirable areas.

On some occasions, certain individuals were asked to wait back.

For the simple reason that we did not want any more than two armed men in tight spots.

So far we have never run into any problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

On some occasions, certain individuals were asked to wait back.
For the simple reason that we did not want any more than two armed men in tight spots.
So far we have never run into any problems.

That sounds like the reasonable way to do it. Had they done that here, the hunter would most certainly still be alive.

What does it take to become a guide?
Just curious.........
Is it like PH in Africa?

Hugely varies depending on where, PH means little in South Africa for instance and a lot in Zimbabwe.

British Columbia has two levels (outfitter, and assistant guides) and ranges from intensive to obtain (outfitter) to extremely little (assistant guide). The assistant guides need only take a multiple choice test, though the industry is supposed to weed out those without appropriate skill. It doesn’t always work that way and zero commentary there on this incident, as I don’t know the details beyond what’s in the press.

There’s a lot of skin in the game for the outfitter, little for the assistant guides. The outfitter who oversees the assistant guides has to own the exclusive territory he guides (which are typically thousands of square miles) or hold lease to it, then take a gov’t supervised exam. Also has to go through an approval / vetting process that in my case took 2 1/2 years to obtain the territory through. That’s legal not competency based, but it definitely makes fly by night and parachute type operations harder to conduct.

I don’t know Canadian law, but I’ve been told you can’t waive negligence in the US.

Frankly, following wounded DG is enough of a dangerous situation that folks who get into it have to be cool enough to function. I’m not sure how the client got in front of one of the guides, but how it happened would tell you if it was someone panicking as Larry said, and who it was that panicked.

I’ve followed a few buffalo and elephant up. It’s exhausting.

I’ve also seen brown bear (grizzly) up close, and no doubt they are firmly in the dangerous camp.

Hope the guides/outfitter have decent insurance.


This is a no win situation.

And yeah, I didn’t see this when it first came up...

quote:

Originally posted by Angus Morrison:
I’m a slow learner, this took me too long. AJ just officially relegated his opinion to junk in my eyes. Neatly done in one judgmental and impressively uninformed post.

Angus....might I ask who AJ is? I'd like to follow other opinions he might offer for consistency. Did he say the client should be left out of pursuing an animal he injured?

quote:

He signed a liability release for that 2013 hunt assuming “all risks of personal injury or death … while participating in the said guided excursion.”

Why would anyone sign a waiver for all risks? Surely a standard exclusion would cover negligence?

quote:

Originally posted by JabaliHunter:

quote:

He signed a liability release for that 2013 hunt assuming “all risks of personal injury or death … while participating in the said guided excursion.”

Why would anyone sign a waiver for all risks? Surely a standard exclusion would cover negligence?

I have seen those that were so overreaching that it was ridiculous.

"[22]...There are some unusual features in...Liability Release Agreement. First and foremost, the document does not actually include terminology expressly releasing...from liability...."

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-tx...91.htm#_Toc497306950

I frequently am in "dangerous" situations in the wild. Hunting, fishing and goofing off. I expect my wife to grieve if I die in an accident. I also expect her to sue if my death is caused by negligence. Some dicktard shoots me, sue for all they have. Just as I would expect if my actions caused the untimely death of someone else.


Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

Contract claimed to be in place for no liability in case of negligence. Might be possible in some cases to contract out of negligence. But ruled invalid due to time limitation. Issue here could also be gross negligence rather than just simple negligence. Good luck trying to contract out of the former.

quote:

Originally posted by SkiBumplus3:
I frequently am in "dangerous" situations in the wild. Hunting, fishing and goofing off. I expect my wife to grieve if I die in an accident. I also expect her to sue if my death is caused by negligence. Some dicktard shoots me, sue for all they have. Just as I would expect if my actions caused the untimely death of someone else.


Ski+3
Whitefish, MT

You sir are a reasonable human being. Others are not so reasonable.

I once arrived in Dawson City for a hunt. I had a cashiers check for the balance due. I was presented with a waiver that I refused to sign. I waived my rights for EVERYTHING humanly possible to conceive.

The outfitter seemed somewhat startled. I pointed out a few things to them as examples. I had waived my rights if, for example:

1- The hunt was conducted IN the lobby of the airport.

2- The guide intentionally shot me.

3- The guide intentionally pushed me off the side of the mountain.

I asked them to tell me where I was wrong. They couldn't. I was perfectly willing to go home right then. They backed off.

One of their horses wrecked a bunch of my gear. I never even brought the issue up other than my request to use their satellite phone to let me wife know mine was no longer working.

This waiver was beyond ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:


You sir are a reasonable human being. Others are not so reasonable.

I once arrived in Dawson City for a hunt. I had a cashiers check for the balance due. I was presented with a waiver that I refused to sign. I waived my rights for EVERYTHING humanly possible to conceive.

The outfitter seemed somewhat startled. I pointed out a few things to them as examples. I had waived my rights if, for example:

1- The hunt was conducted IN the lobby of the airport.

2- The guide intentionally shot me.

3- The guide intentionally pushed me off the side of the mountain.

I asked them to tell me where I was wrong. They couldn't. I was perfectly willing to go home right then. They backed off.

One of their horses wrecked a bunch of my gear. I never even brought the issue up other than my request to use their satellite phone to let me wife know mine was no longer working.

This waiver was beyond ridiculous.

I laughed out loud at this Larry.

quote:

Originally posted by 4sixteen:
An example of a wounding policy. Seems fair to everyone involved as well as the quarry -



The client takes the responsibilities that he can place shots accurately at ranges he deems to be reasonable and his choice of caliber and ammo are up to the task.

That waiver seems quite reasonable, except for the last line. I would not agree to the Outfitter deeming "all decisions fair and final". If he wants my money, since he does work for me, he would have to agree to strike that line and initial it accordingly. Otherwise, I will hunt, but with one of his competitors.

The Ast Guide should have and would have been charged in the U.S. with Manslaughter or Criminally Negligent Homicide. Whether a waiver of liability was in fact signed or not, it in no circumstances gives the Ast. Guide the legal right to negligently kill his own client and think he will get a pass on any criminal or civil liability arising from his deed.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a Canadian Court. I predict a large out of court settlement. Guide shoud lose his license, clearly not fit for the job. Bringing your client back safely is first and foremost, his TOP responsiblity.

Or his outfit his rules. Outfitter to be in charge for the greater good. If the potential client wants to be in charge he can always take his business elsewhere.

Yes,the Outfitter can be/is in charge. If he wants to have a rediculous or unreasonable Waiver form, then him and his rules will wind up going out of business like so many Outfitters, or small business people in general do. But, he will have his rules, don't know that will help him pay his bills, but he can have it his way.

Let a client be in charge instead to cause a train wreck? Who would then blame the outfitter for the wreck? Outfitters cater to the masses. Next.

The Guide NEGLIGENTLY kills his own client, what train wreck could possibly be worse than that ? How many business do well when they kill their own clients ?

One of my good friends grew up with Mr. Cooper. What a tragedy.