Everybody is sue happy these days. While I sympathasize with the pregnant woman and her family,The responsible person is the shooter not the land owner or the government or anyone else. I agree with AJG, one of the first rules of hunting or even just shooting is gun safety which is taught to be sure of your target and the surrounding area and possible carry of your round. In short, "if you are not sure or positive that it is safe, DON'T SHOOT". Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And cars don't kill people the operator of the vehicle is the sole responsible person. It's always sue the one with the largest pockets which happens to be the land owner in this case. Just like Cheney, he should have made sure of his shot before pulling the trigger or "DON'T SHOOT".

Landowners have the option of purchasing liability insurence for recreational activities being done on their land, and those that recieve lease fees from hunters should probably look into that. The true problem here is that we dont have enough facts from this article--i.e. did the farmer know this hunter be reckless when it came to shooting, or did he drink to excess etc... I agree that landowners who derive no pecuiniary gain from allowing others to hunt on their land deserve some sort of immunity from suit due to the negligent acts of those engaging in such activities---but this is a slipery slope. You cant allow some landowner to walk away scot-free from liability if that landowner knew of that hunters propensities of either being reckless when it came to firearms. THe moral to the story is that if your a landowner have the hunter sign a waiver of liability, because a waiver is a absolute bar (absent willful conduct) to recreational activities engaged in on your land. This is why when you go skiing on the slopes and all those people break their legs, they cant sue because to get the lift tickets you sign that waiver!

do we need a law for every stupid action that man can create??
the insurance companies already make a fortune off our fears and crazy behaviors.
how about eliminating ALL issues of liability. no fault, no blame living. just think how many lawyers would be out of work? the clutter in the courts could be reduced.

This country is insurance poor already. You can't own anything in this country unless you have substantial amounts of insurance. And half the time, the policy you get and pay your hard earned money for has some sort of exclusionary statement in small print that leaves you hanging out in mid air anyways. Just ask the policy holders of major catastrophes. As soon as the insurance companies find out they have to pay out big money, like they have collected for years, they are all of a sudden broke but never go out of business. Wonder why? Could it be that they have their money tied up in real estate instead of paying the victims? Look into it and check it out.

You may hunt my land, in limited numbers, but you better know before you start that, as Matt Mallery said above: "You are on your own." I cannot and will not try to protect you from your own, God-given stupidity. Where I live, you can and will go from the top of the food web to the bottom in a blink of an eye (owned by grizz or back bears, lynx, bobcat or cougar,) unless you're keen to get stomped on by bison, moose or elk. Show a little sense of self preservation.

An atrosity, there is no logical basis for the landowner being responsible for the actions of another person - an independent individual while on their property. It's a classic example of greed run amuck, money grubbing people (their loss is a tragedy but I don't believe the monetary gain offsets/fixes replaces that in any way - the basis of the suit is strictly for money) hiring an attorney out for a fee. The states may well have to act to prevent such greedy lawsuits, otherwise people having access to private land will become a thing of the past. The people that filed the suits basically used the courts to steal from the landowner.

Lawyers are ruining this country.

This discussion is like the story about the thief who breaks your window to come in and rob you. The glass comes down and cuts his arm severely and he sues the homeowner even though he was committing a felonious act on you and your property. Should you as the property owner be responsible for someone who was reckless on your property? Or should he pay the price for being reckless?

I think liability should fall on the hunter-if the facts seem to support they/that person was solely responsible-for the shooting. Althought they are called "accidental" if it was just that-an accident.
The Feds give flood insurance to people building on known flood areas-Why don't they give some affordable liability insur to farmers?