Quote:
Again here in Louisiana we are a contributary state what that means is you may win a suit but the judge can still find you partially at fault. In this case the shooter could be found at fault but the shootee wasn't wearing orange.
A judge could say the shooter was 70% at fault and only liable for that amount and the shootee picks up the other 30%. Or 80/20 100/00 and so on.
|
Sure, the hunter may not be found 100% at fault, but the hunter had 100% control to NOT pull the trigger. Also, very few if any states require everyone to where hunter orange. There are numerous accounts from IHEA where hunters shoot joggers, hikers, campers, people in their own fricking back yards. Technically, the child was not hunting and not required to wear hunter orange by any sort of Wisconsin law.
With that said, Wisconsin law does NOT require hunter orange be worn for turkey season. The boy and his father were 100% inside of the law in regard to their clothing. They aren't to be blamed for not wearing hunter orange when the law does not require it (in part because it makes turkey hunting so difficult). So this is absolutely on the head of the shooter, not the boy or his father.
Apparently, the father was hit but uninjured as well.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/wisc...y-ncxdc-042011