"Hunter" falls from Treestand, sues landowner

Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
35
Likes
25
Location
Manchester, NH
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Dear Friends:

My name is Rick Olson. I am on the Board of Directors for the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation. NHWF was established over 80 years ago as New Hampshire's foremost advocate for Hunting, Fishing and Trapping. We are a "Hook and bullet" organization.

In November of 2009, William C. Jasmin of Manchester fell out a tree when the tree stand he was trying to climb into collapsed. In April of this year, Jasmin retained an attorney and filed a lawsuit against the landowner, despite specific protections in our laws limiting a landowners' liability when that landowner makes his land open and accessible for hunting and fishing.

Here is what we all need to know. William Jasmin is a scumbag. When the fall occurred, He was found to be under the influence of alcohol; We have recently discovered that he HAD NO HUNTING LICENSE. Presently, there has arisen a question as to his suitability under our laws as the whether or not he is a person who is precluded from handling, possessing or otherwise owning firearms. That end is being looked at.

THIS IS JUST DISGUSTING. IN New Hampshire 80% of land hunted upon is "private land." This suit will have a chilling effect on all landowners who currently have their land open to hunting and other recreational uses, for fear of being sued. We may see more land posted.

The NHWF has undertaken to assist Mr. Charles Corliss, the landowner being sued...We will be establishing a landowner legal defense fund; We will be waging a campaign to bring the highest levels of awareness to this case, we will be going to Clubs and organizations to educate them about the law; we will be approaching legislatures to add language to the law that would require those who file these suits to pay all fees and costs upon dismissal of such suits. We will be working with NH Fish & Game Landowner relations to educate people about how to handle permissions to hunt; We will plan to conduct seminars from time to time in order to keep landowners aware of law changes.

WE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO ENSURE THAT LANDOWNERS, WHO SO GENEROUSLY AND GRACIOUSLY MAKE THEIR LAND AVAILABLE FOR HUNTING FISHING AND TRAPPING WILL KNOW WE ARE THERE WITH THEM, SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WHEN SUCH UNSCRUPULOUS PEOPLE FILE THESE SUITS.

I joined this forum, not just because I am a Hunter, Fisherman and a Trapper, but I am also a SHOOTER...I hand load many of my own ammunition loads, and I spend a considerable amount of time shooting at the range. I advocated for the Range protection Bill back in 2003 and joined many in the shooting community when that passed. Hunters are part of that community.

I came here to post this to inform people. I am not going to make a sales pitch for membership or donations or any other money....But if anybody is interested at that level, I would ask that you contact Janice at the NHWF offices. Thanks for taking time to read my post!
 
If Mr. Corliss has homeowner's insurance his insurer will more than likely provide him with a legal defense and cover claims made against him should there be an award. The lawyer that took this guys case is a fool.....
 
If Mr. Corliss has homeowner's insurance his insurer will more than likely provide him with a legal defense and cover claims made against him should there be an award. The lawyer that took this guys case is a fool.....

If homeowners is covering, it is quite likely a settlement will be offered on the basis of "cheaper than mounting a defense". The "fool" may very well end up with decent compensation for his time.
 
As a land owner with a snowmobile trail and hunters, I'm very interested in how this pans out. When the state accepted my trail into the system, I was told I can't be sued.
 
If homeowners is covering, it is quite likely a settlement will be offered on the basis of "cheaper than mounting a defense". The "fool" may very well end up with decent compensation for his time.
Yes, such things happen. Insurance is a risk-managing machine. But even with a settlement offer, he is most likely to end up with little more than his medical costs. Insurance defense also tends to pick cases to make an example to discourage such behavior. If they are confident they have a good chance to get a summary judgment because the matter is unsupported as a matter of law based upon the portion of the facts not in dispute (or because the plaintiff fails to state a case based on the facts in controversy), then frankly, the defense will drive to that goal. Anyone can file a bad case - sanctions against attorneys for doing so are very rare unless the attorney appears to have incorrectly and intentionally or carelessly stated a matter of law.

I'm pretty confident this one will be dismissed. It's still very early, NHWF is digging up damning facts that are not in dispute, and the plaintiff has nothing but one thin allegation he's hoping will justify a court case justifying a peculiar reading of the black-letter law. But that's ultimately a question of law, and will be handled up front, then appealed. I really just don't see this going far.

Land by me (including mine) is almost universally un-posted (for miles), connecting lots of conservation land as well, and we all love it. If the defendant winds up in the hole fiscally, I'll be looking for the fund so I can help out.
 
Last edited:
If only he snapped his neck and a mountain lion ate him.

That's horrible to say, I don't mean it. Where do I donate to the defense?
 
If homeowners is covering, it is quite likely a settlement will be offered on the basis of "cheaper than mounting a defense". The "fool" may very well end up with decent compensation for his time.

If the case were to survive summary judgement it is highly likely that a traditionally very conservative NH jury would find for the landowner and the plaintiff would get nothing. Many insurers use staff counsel these days so their defense costs are somewhat fixed as the lawyers are salaried. When there is zero liability the insurance company would and should, be less likely to offer anything more than a nominal amount as the odds are a jury is not going to hurt them.
 
Just out of curiosity was the tree stand his or the land owners


ETA...If I read more I would have seen it was the land owners
 
Last edited:
Now that is exactly what we don't want....the Insurance company to see some nuisance value and settle it for short money....By doing that, that would open the flood gates of hapless scumbags who want some quick coin by feigning injury...this really needs an outright dismissal

UPDATE: Turns out that our scumbag hunter "knew" he had broken laws....He waited until the statute of limitations tolled on his violations (1 year) and then sued...(Statute of limitations on torts - 3 years) KIcker 96FS, he is being looked at for appropriateness to legally handle hunting weapons. There may be somethign prosecutable there.

Also, we had a big pow-wow in Concord Yesterday. A whole bunch of legislators...one has gotten permission from the rules committee to put in new legislation to strengthen landowner liability laws...i.e. to add a provision to the law which would make asses like Jasmin pay all the fees and costs to the landowner they sue, when the suit is dismissed or landowner is found not liable.
 
If the case were to survive summary judgement it is highly likely that a traditionally very conservative NH jury would find for the landowner and the plaintiff would get nothing. Many insurers use staff counsel these days so their defense costs are somewhat fixed as the lawyers are salaried. When there is zero liability the insurance company would and should, be less likely to offer anything more than a nominal amount as the odds are a jury is not going to hurt them.

Where hunters would get hurt is people posting their land for simply not wanting to be dragged through a trial. This is why it is so important for us to be out in front of this issue...side-by-side with the Landowner all the way....And now that I am unemployed, I can jump into this on a full-time basis
 
On Tuesday, August 9th, State Rep. Gene Chandler held a meeting to gather input into strengthening the current law about Landowner liability. Gene has obtained permission from the rules committee to make a late filing, enabling the changes to become law this session.

Input was taken from Members of the commission, the Executive Director, NHWF, SCI, The Farm Bureau, and several large landowners. The consensus is a LOSER PAYS amendment...meaning, if a lawsuit is dismissed, the person suing the landowner will be liable to pay all fees and costs associated with defending against such a suit. Maine is being looked at for model legislation, as they already have a loser pays component.

While some had suggested amending the law to bar suits altogether, such a law would not be constitutional as it would bar a fundamental constitutional right of legal redress under the constitution. On the other hand, thee is no problem with increasing the stakes for bringing such a lawsuit, thereby discouraging people from suing landowners.

This past Wednesday, the legislative committee for the Fish & Game Commission, chaired by Commissioner Morse, voted unanimously to work with the Senate on a companion bill. Senator Andy Sanborn was there and is going to lead that effort on the Senate side.

BOTTOM LINE: This law will be getting amended very quickly for the loser pays component.
 
Looks like they have a general PPal donation link on their page up at: http://www.nhwf.org/donate.html

Rick, can people donate via PPAL at that link and put "Landowner Legal Defense Fund" in the comments?

Those are thevery things we are going to discuss at this months meeting. August 22, for anybody interested...its at the Conservation center on Portsmouth street in Concord.
 
This was in the Glob today, too.

Apparently, part of the complaint is that the landowner said, in effect, "You can hunt deer if you shoot as many coyotes as you can." Plaintiff says that now, it's a "contract" not just someone hunting on another's land....

[rolleyes]

Well the contract should be null and void if Richard Head didn't have a hunting license he could not be hunting he would be poaching.
 
Well the contract should be null and void if Richard Head didn't have a hunting license he could not be hunting he would be poaching.
Parole evidence rule aside, I think the contract is a seriously problematic thing given one party states he has had zero contact with the other and, other than one party's assertion, there isn't any extrinsic evidence of such a verbal contract.
 
Back
Top Bottom