Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

Interesting read.....

Ill about guarantee a democratic judge made that ruling. It's really far reaching, but the courts have this belief that it doesn't matter because there is insurance to cover it.
 
This is also why IF you allow people to hunt your land they should be required to purchase a liability policy and sign a very restrictive waiver. I understand this isn't the neighborly way, but its a reality. Don't lose YOUR farm because some bonehead fell out of HIS treestand!
 
hoosierhunter said:
This is also why IF you allow people to hunt your land they should be required to purchase a liability policy and sign a very restrictive waiver. I understand this isn't the neighborly way, but its a reality. Don't lose YOUR farm because some bonehead fell out of HIS treestand!
Click to expand...

You realize that this will completely 'eradicate' the opportunity of the majority of those who hunt by 'knocking on the door?'

I sincerely hope that this isn't true, or if so, gets overturned. What was wrong with the way it was before? Times are changing, and it sucks! :(
 
for the landowner to allow ANYONE on their property they would be nuts! No matter what if something happens you are the only one that can lose. If someone falls in a hole you can and will be sued. Would you like to put your fate in the hands of a stinky ole dude in a black robe that leans way too far left? Nope not me. And don't think your friends would not sue you. Someone falls from a tree stand and they WILL find a lawyer that tells the that they are due a big settlement. And they can sue above the limits of any policy and you have to defend it which will take years and lots of $$$

Now after you worked so hard to buy that farm why would you risk it all?
 
"Landowners property MUST BE open to the general public" ... a step toward marxism. Times are changing.
 
Not too worried. If anything a few landowners may use this as an excuse to not allow people on their property. If you believe your friends will sue you, I would be looking for some new friends.
 
Rutcon, I think the "open to the public" comment means the owner is liable if the property is perceived to be open to anyone for use at anytime, hence, do not permit anyone on the property. I think the Iowa legislature will fill this gap with amending current landowner liability law or create new legislation to cover absurdities in this area. Filling in these gaps is how the legislature checks the judiciary.
 
In most cases where you see someone sueing a landowner/friend for something that happened on the landowner's property that resulted in bodily injury that required some hospital care, it is not the guest's choice or decision to sue the landowner/friend for the injury. What happens is that the insurance company who has the healthcare covereage on the injured party sue so they can get someone else to pay and the client has no say in it but they become part of the suit as a witness.
 
I completely disagree with the article. The supreme court case had absolutely nothing to do with the recreational use statute, but they landowners tried to use it to shield themselves from what was probably a dumb choice by the landowner. He had a farm tour for kindergartners on his farm. He covered up the hay chute in the hay loft with a hay bale and told nobody about it. One of the chaperones was a rather large woman, who stood on the bale, fell through the opening, and broke her wrist and leg. Please go to this website http://www.law.drake.edu/academics/agLaw/?pageID=agPublications, scroll down, and read this: Sallee v. Stewart: Iowa Supreme Court Addresses the Recreational Use Statute, Edward Cox, (2013). The author of this, an attorney with the Drake University Ag Law Center plainly states that any recreational activity that is explicitly stated in the liability statute is protected. Read the entire document. I sure trust the source of this publication much more so than the original one posted. What has me so irritated is that Farm Bureau continues to run around and tell people not to let anybody on their land. I have 1 decent spot to fish around here that I can take my 5 year old boy and easily catch some nice fish from shore. The landowner was told by FB that he should no longer allow anyone as he has no coverage.
 
Last edited:
That one sentence says it all. "A landowner can't limit access to their property and still have the limited liability protection." So unless you let anyone hunt without asking, you are liable.And a landowner can't hunt with the group he let's hunt on his property, that would be "tour guide". How a judge got this from the case in ? is unreal. For those that don't know, a dairy farmer had a school class in to tour his farm. He had covered the hay chutes in the haymow and tested them by walking on them himself. At the end of the tour the kids got to run and play in the haymow. The teacher stepped on one of the covered chutes and broke through, breaking an ankle and wrist. In court it was brought out that the teacher was a very large heavy woman, and the farmer knew that, so he was liable for not covering the chutes well enough to support her. So, I can see SOME liability for the farmer. How that case got expanded into the ruling covering liability for hunting and fishing is beyond me, but this is real and if legislators don't change it, you know there will be some cases in court soon. The hunter himself will have no control, it will be his insurance company trying to get out of paying his medical costs that will sue the landowner. That's why signing a waiver before you go hunting will have no effect, your insurance company didn't sign that waiver. And you KNOW some guy will try to get some hunting property by using this.
 
Thanks for that link. It sure does conflict with what the first article said and with what I have been led to believe by other readings. I'm sure FB is going to err on the side of caution and try to avoid paying for any legal protection at all. Only logical if you think about it. They love to collect car insurance on cars that are always parked in the garage! Anyone have any other links to info?
 
turkeyriver said:
That one sentence says it all. "A landowner can't limit access to their property and still have the limited liability protection." So unless you let anyone hunt without asking, you are liable.And a landowner can't hunt with the group he let's hunt on his property, that would be "tour guide". How a judge got this from the case in ? is unreal. For those that don't know, a dairy farmer had a school class in to tour his farm. He had covered the hay chutes in the haymow and tested them by walking on them himself. At the end of the tour the kids got to run and play in the haymow. The teacher stepped on one of the covered chutes and broke through, breaking an ankle and wrist. In court it was brought out that the teacher was a very large heavy woman, and the farmer knew that, so he was liable for not covering the chutes well enough to support her. So, I can see SOME liability for the farmer. How that case got expanded into the ruling covering liability for hunting and fishing is beyond me, but this is real and if legislators don't change it, you know there will be some cases in court soon. The hunter himself will have no control, it will be his insurance company trying to get out of paying his medical costs that will sue the landowner. That's why signing a waiver before you go hunting will have no effect, your insurance company didn't sign that waiver. And you KNOW some guy will try to get some hunting property by using this.
Click to expand...


I hate how right you are. You summed it up well.
 
turkeyriver said:
That one sentence says it all. "A landowner can't limit access to their property and still have the limited liability protection." So unless you let anyone hunt without asking, you are liable.And a landowner can't hunt with the group he let's hunt on his property, that would be "tour guide". How a judge got this from the case in ? is unreal. For those that don't know, a dairy farmer had a school class in to tour his farm. He had covered the hay chutes in the haymow and tested them by walking on them himself. At the end of the tour the kids got to run and play in the haymow. The teacher stepped on one of the covered chutes and broke through, breaking an ankle and wrist. In court it was brought out that the teacher was a very large heavy woman, and the farmer knew that, so he was liable for not covering the chutes well enough to support her. So, I can see SOME liability for the farmer. How that case got expanded into the ruling covering liability for hunting and fishing is beyond me, but this is real and if legislators don't change it, you know there will be some cases in court soon. The hunter himself will have no control, it will be his insurance company trying to get out of paying his medical costs that will sue the landowner. That's why signing a waiver before you go hunting will have no effect, your insurance company didn't sign that waiver. And you KNOW some guy will try to get some hunting property by using this.
Click to expand...

I agree with this completely. There is a very important distinction between this case and Joe Schmo falling out of their deerstand. In this case, the farmer WAS negligent. His ghetto-rigged haybale simply wasn't engineered to accommodate fatties, and he's negligent. But I'm having difficultly connecting the dots trying to figure out how the ruling can extend beyond negligence and make the claim that "A landowner can't limit access to their property and still have the limited liability protection."

This was obviously not the intent of Iowa Code section 461C.2. But, that's the court's sole purpose... to interpret intent of the code when certain grey areas exist... but considering that negligence exists in this case, I just don't see the grey area. Since this is a supreme court decision, this case will not get overturned... at least anytime soon. We are now dependent on the legislature to revisit section 461C.2, and clarifying.

Drake Agricultural Law's article, which was referenced above is the better article. Their opinion of how it relates to the other related case, Peterson v. Schwertley is interesting as well (http://sustainablefarmlease.org/2013/04/iowa-recreational-use-statute-and-sallee-v-stewart/). What I got from it is that the case hasn't clarified whether liability would be tied to restricting access at all, but rather recommends further clarity from the legislation in the court's majority opinion. So, it appears that legislative debate WILL happen... therefore it would be a good time to write your legislators NOW! We need an amendment to 461C.2

THIS IS A REALLY BIG DEAL!
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous. Frigin lawyers.
Out of curiousity- anyone know how much $ the teacher got on the "farm tour" that sued the farmer? That about makes my blood boil!
As a side-note, you landowners are well served buying several million in liability coverage, it's not very expensive at all. Not saying that solves this discussion but you're nuts if you don't get it.
 
Sligh1 said:
Ridiculous. Frigin lawyers.
Out of curiousity- anyone know how much $ the teacher got on the "farm tour" that sued the farmer? That about makes my blood boil!
As a side-note, you landowners are well served buying several million in liability coverage, it's not very expensive at all. Not saying that solves this discussion but you're nuts if you don't get it.
Click to expand...

It states that she was a chaperone so I would almost assume she is not employed by the school and likely received no pay. It seems that if she was an employee her worker comp insurance would have had to pay? I also assume that like another poster said, she has been forced to sue by her insurance company. I would be curious which company that is. Farm Bureau maybe?
 
I hope you understand that you are opening the door to lose everything. Unless any of you have ever litigated against or debated a Harvard attorney ( I Have) you and me don't think like them. They see things through glasses that see the harmed having to be made whole. I don't like any of this legal E stuff but no the legal precedence has been set. All future cases in the country not even Iowa will reference this case in federal court. I know the ruling is bad but now will be an uphill battle to render it mute. It will take going all the way to an Iowa supreme court to get any relief. That's years and 100k + why risk going there???? maybe its me?
 
This is f'ing insane. I am so sick and tired of the majority getting F'd because the stupidity/ignorance of the minority.

I feel bad for that dairy farmer - he thought he was doing the right thing but wasn't prepared for fatty magee.

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
 
Note that defense costs are usually included in your liability limit. The thought of not carrying insurance because no limit would be adequate is really a poor decision based on the cost of liability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom