| I understand that this is a somewhat contrived example used to illustrate a point, but there are many more options available to the court in this case: 1. Both men that fired a shot are found liable because firing a shot knowing one of the men may be in a line of fire is irresponsible and potentially criminal. 2. None of the men that fired a shot are found liable because the third man went into a section of the forest he wasn't supposed to go into because by doing so he put human life under significant risk. 3. The establishment that manages the hunting grounds (a private organization, the state, or even the federal government) is found liable because it didn't properly segment the area to sufficiently prevent risk of human injuries. 4. All three men are found liable because they didn't properly define necessary rules in order to prevent risk of human injuries. In fact, in this case I'd argue that it's irrelevant which man fired a shot that hit the third man. Either a) Both mean fired when they weren't supposed to, in which case they're both liable. b) The third man went where he wasn't supposed to, in which case he is fully liable for his own injuries. c) A third party organization that manages the hunting grounds didn't properly set up the rules, in which case it is liable. d) The men were responsible for setting up the rules themselves, in which case all three of them are liable. If you look at the case this way, you can easily find an outcome that doesn't screw anyone. Someone was responsible for ensuring proper safety precautions, and they didn't do their job. That party (or group of parties) is liable. The others are not. |