I might have to disagree with you, NITRO, depending on where the shooting might take place.

I am not an attorney but I have observed quite a number of liability claims and cases here in my State and it is hard to see how this scenario could have played out even exactly according to the testimonies without the shooter being held negligent at least for some percentage. At least here.

At any rate, I think legal negligence is going to be a concept that varies from place to place.

As stated, I am having trouble seeing the shooter getting by with no negligence in this shooting, were it to have occured here. As far as the instructions of the PH, that is interesting, too, because professional liability differs somewhat from personal liability and there is a higher expectation of performance placed on the professional or business entity.

Now here's a twist; IF it could be proven that she KNEW there was a man under the leopard, then she might in my opinion actually have a better argument, meaning, she was trying to save him and hit him anyway...but saved him nonetheless, since it was impossible to save him without shooting, etc, etc, etc, etc...

But for her not to have known he was there as she states in her testimony, THAT means she fired a shot without first observing the surroundings and that is classic negligence {Want proof? The man was hit; there is no argument that she didn't shoot him}. Even under the circumstances of the case, it would be difficult to say she was in no way negligent in firing the weapon IMO.

Courts of law are tricky things, but I can see my description playing out this way pretty easily.

I am not cricifying her, and not even judging her character, etc. What I'm saying is just what I said; I think at least here she'd have a tough row to hoe to dodge the negligence issue 100%, at least according to her own testimony.

One last thought; here the fellow shot would have every opportunity to go after her for damages if he so chose. Does he in Namibia? I have no idea.