Quote:

---

As stated, I am having trouble seeing the shooter getting by with no negligence in this shooting, were it to have occured here.

---

Quote:

---

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...

---

Quote:

---

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 think I will wait and see what the Namibia authorities decide.

Anyone involved in the safari business accepts an element of risk, including PHs, trackers and especially clients. Ambulance chasing lawyers in Africa are not as common.

PS 9.3, Under the scenario you outline, the "safest" approach when a leopard attacks someone else would be not to shoot at all, as then there is no risk of negligence.

Obviously not an acceptable thing to do.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Edited by NitroX (03/05/09 12:58 AM)

Post Extras