Scottsdale
Insurance Co. is not obligated to indemnify a hunt club member who
accidentally shot someone under terms of the club’s commercial general
liability policy, an appeals court ruled.
While
shooting at a deer from land leased by Northumberland Hunt Club,
Timothy B. Johnson, a member of the club, unintentionally shot and
injured Danny Ray Marks Jr., who was traveling on Route 642 adjacent to
the land in Richmond County, Virginia, in January 2013, according to
Monday’s ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond,
Virginia, in Danny Ray Marks Jr. and Timothy B. Johnson v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.
Mr.
Marks filed suit against Mr. Johnson in Virginia state court in
December 2013. According to the complaint, Mr. Johnson, who had
extensive firearm training and was familiar with the location, took a
position about 75 yards from the highway, even though he knew or should
have known his gun could shot further than 75 yards.
When
Mr. Johnson shot in the direction of the highway, one of the pellets
from his gun struck Mr. Marks in the head, according to the complaint.
In
January 2014, Mr. Marks also filed suit against Scottsdale,
Arizona-based Scottsdale Insurance, seeking a declaration it had a duty
to indemnify Mr. Johnson.
It was just one pellet and he didn't mean it.
ReplyDelete"It was just one pellet and he didn't mean it."
ReplyDeleteIf it had been intentional, he would have been charged with some form of assault, which isn't mentioned in the article. as for it being just one pellet, since he was shooting at a deer, it was likely buckshot. OO buckshot pellets are .33 caliber and weighs just under the weight of a .223 rifle bullet, albeit with a lower velocity, something much more serious than say birdshot.
In my opinion, there was some negligence there and there still appears to be a suit against Mr. Johnson.
That's the problem with all the stupid dangerous shit you lawful gun owners do. If it's not intentional you get a pass. That's wrong.
DeleteThat's the problem with all the stupid dangerous shit you lawful gun owners do.
DeleteUm . . . what "stupid dangerous shit [we] lawful gun owners do"? I've done nothing of the kind, and I strongly suspect SSG has never done so, either. Can you make a point without tossing libels around, or are those all you've got?
When Mr. Johnson shot in the direction of the highway, one of the pellets from his gun struck Mr. Marks in the head, according to the complaint.
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit puzzling. The "one of the pellets" implies that the hunter was using a shotgun loaded with buckshot, but Arizona deer hunting laws appear to outlaw buckshot for deer hunting (bold emphasis added):
5. To take deer:
a. Centerfire rifles;
b. Muzzleloading rifles;
c. All other rifles using black powder or synthetic
black powder;
d. Centerfire handguns;
e. Handguns using black powder or synthetic black
powder;
f. Shotguns shooting slugs, only;
Interesting. What could explain it?
DeleteFirst thing that come to mind is a private hunting preserve.
DeleteWhat could explain it?
DeleteDon't really know. Clueless reporter, maybe? Heard "hunting," and just assumed it was deer hunting, but was actually bird hunting? But that's just idle speculation, which I generally try to avoid.
My reply to Kurt never has appeared, nor something conversational I said to Junior in another post. The last of my comments that posted was one where you accused me of lying, and then didn't post my reply that linked to a post where you said just what I'd accused you of saying. What's the deal? Have I been banned for having the temerity to contradict you one too many times?
ReplyDeleteI would have deleted this whining comment too if I'd seen it better.
DeleteIf I were banning people for contradicting me too many times, do you really think Kurt and TS would get any air time? No, pain-in-the-ass paranoia about being singled out for bad treatment is a drag and I won't post comments like that.
Does that help?