“Every unfortunate event does not give rise to lawsuit.” ~Judge Mills Lane
Hunting is a time-honored tradition in New Hampshire. Interwoven into that tradition is a significant part of New Hampshire’s economy, relationships with landowners and other hunters. Unfortunately, hunting has now come under attack from within…in this case, by a hunter.
On April 8, 2011 William Jasmin of Manchester filed a lawsuit in the Hillsborough Superior Court alleging that Charles A Corliss of Epsom, (the land owner) was negligent in that Corliss allegedly gave his consent to Jasmin to use a tree stand situated on the property, but then failed to warn Jasmin that the tree stand was defective. Jasmin subsequently fell and serious injuries followed. Jasmin now sues Corliss, the landowner to recover for his injuries.
New Hampshire RSA 212:34 limits the liability of a person entering onto another’s land and states the owner owes no duty (author’s emphasis) of care to keep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting…[o]r to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purposes, except as provided in paragraph III hereof…”(click the link above and read the full text of the law).
Since 1961, the legislative intent has been to shield landowners from liability when they open their land and make it available for public for use. Now, as with other things in life, lawyers tread upon our ground, seeking to pierce the shield of protection for the pursuit of the almight buck and the advocacy of those amongst us who make poor choices.
In addition to RSA 212:34, RSA 508:14 asserts, “[w]ho without charge permits any person to use land for recreational purposes or as a spectator of recreational activity, shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of intentionally caused injury or damage…” It is clear that the legislature was duplicitous and intended to protect landowners from liability when people engaged in inherently risky activities.
But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the “slip and fall-smith” hired by Mr Jasmin didn’t include some allegation that Mr Jasmin was charged….a “fee.” The pleadings assert that “specific consideration” was asked for by Mr. Corliss in that he asked Jasmin to, “shoot as many Coyotes as he could..” Consideration? Seriously? I’ll be watching to see how the court wrangles with that, should this somehow make it past Summary Judgment.