Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Brent Bacon drove to the ranch with the intention of first starting a furnace and then hunting for deer on the ranch property. He took with him a Marlin lever action 30-30 rifle and headed to the ranch in his personal vehicle. On the way, Brent observed a fox, loaded six or seven rounds of ammunition into the rifle magazine, 'cocked in a shell,' and fired one shot at the fox. He apparently missed and 'cocked in a second shell,' but was too late to fire a second shot. According to his statement to investigators, he then pulled the trigger and released the hammer so that the hammer was resting on a live round of ammunition. He then proceeded to the ranch, where he helped dislodge a garage door, and then visited for a while. Brent was unable to start the furnace. So, after exchanging pleasantries, he started a fire in the fireplace and announced that he was leaving to go hunting. He walked back to his car, retrieved his rifle, put a box of shells in his pocket and returned to the 'new house' to get the ranch pickup which he intended to drive to the point where he would begin his hunt. As Brent approached the deck of the house with his thumb on the hammer, he stumbled and fell. Sometime after he stumbled, but before he landed on the deck, his rifle discharged; the bullet struck Barbara in the head; and, after surviving for a period of sixty-nine days, she died from the head injuries she sustained when she was shot. Her husband (P) brought a wrongful death action against Bacon (D), and the owners of the property (D1). P alleged that D had been negligent while working for D1, that D1 was vicariously liable for D's negligence; and that D1 was also negligent for allowing an unsafe and dangerous condition (the stairs to the deck and the area surrounding the stairs) to exist on the ranch property and that this combined negligence had caused the injury. D sought bankruptcy protection and was dismissed from the case. D1 moved for summary judgment and the District Court granted the motion based on the following conclusions: D1 had no duty to Barbara because the risk of this type of accident was not foreseeable, that no unsafe condition had been shown to exist on D1's property, that P had offered no proof that the condition of the steps was either the actual or proximate cause of Barbara's injuries, that even if D1 was negligent, the manner in which D handled his firearm was so unforeseeable that it was an intervening, superseding cause of Barbara's injuries and that the principles of respondeat superior were not applicable because D was not an employee of the ranch company on the date in question, and even if he had been earlier in the day, his actions at the time of Barbara's injuries were unrelated to any duties he had performed for the ranch. The trial court judge entered summary judgment in favor of D1 and P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co