Author Topic: Injured big-game hunter takes aim at bullet manufacturers (Read 1467 times)

Geno · « **on:** April 16, 2003, 09:01:11 AM »

Or, in other words, you've got to be kidding me!!!
I saw this in todays (4/16/2003) Minneapolis Star Tribune.
So many things about this guy, his lawyer and the story just stink.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/3828803.html

When a professional big-game hunter on safari in Africa shot a charging lion from about 30 yards away, he expected that the cat would die, or at least be stopped.Instead, the lion mauled the marksman. It wasn't bad aim, but bad bullets that allowed the lion to take Rolf Rohwer temporarily out of the hunting game, according to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday against the bullet manufacturers, one of which is the Federal Cartridge Co. of Anoka. Rohwer, of Scotland, is a wildlife biologist who has more than 30 years of African hunting and wildlife management experience, according to his Web site. He suffered permanent damage to his legs, arm and back, said his attorney, Louis Franecke. Rohwer was trying a new type of ammunition on Aug. 11, 2000, the day of the attack, he said. "We think the company makes good ammunition, but not all of it is good for every application," Franecke said from his office in San Rafael, Calif. "Therein lies the problem. This bullet is not suitable for all big game. "Although the bullet might be good for hunting the majority of big game animals -- including rhinoceros, elephant, buffalo and hippopotamus -- the lion's thin skin allowed the bullet to pass through with minimal damage, he said. On a thicker-skinned animal, the bullet -- a .458 Winchester Magnum, 500 grain Trophy Bonded Bear Claw -- would expand, killing the animal quickly, according to the suit. A lion shot with the bullet is still a dangerous and "harmful beast capable of causing severe personal injuries to human for a substantial period of time," the suit said. Officials at Federal Cartridge hadn't seen the suit and were unable to comment on it, said Rod Bitz, spokesman for Alliant Techsystems Inc., Federal's parent company. The other company named is Trophy Bonded Bullets Inc. of Houston, according to the suit. "This bullet is not suitable for killing a charging lion," Franecke said. "It's suitable for killing a lion over a period of time." Before the lion reached Rohwer, who has since returned to hunting, he shot it a second time, Franecke said. "The lion died basically while chewing on my client."

markc · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2003, 01:36:28 AM »

having never hunted Africa, or lions, tigers and bears (oh my). I just gotta say, that guy is an idiot and I would like to sit on that jury just to tell him, "Duh, no kidding, a lion is a dangerous animal".
markc

Lawdog · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2003, 10:08:33 AM »

Having not hunted Africa yet(next year) I can't say anything about a lion but bears or hogs is a different subject. Anytime an animal has decided to take on a man the adrenaline is pumping and they become very hard to stop. To stop any animal that is charging you means you must take out a major skeletal support or the brain. Sounds to me like he MISSED. A body shot, even through the heart isn't going to stop an animal in full charge. 30 yards is covered by a bear in a few seconds and a lion would cover it even faster. Only time for one well placed shot. This is the risk you take when you decide to hunt dangerous game. He wouldn't want me sitting on the jury. You want to be safe, stay home and play video games. Lawdog

Zachary · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2003, 11:21:48 AM »

I haven't seen the suit, but I would imagine (as a lawyer) that the defendant's filed an affirmative defense akin to assumption of the risk. Under this legal theory, a Plaintiff may be to blame for a percentage of the damages. For example, let's say that a jury (if a jury trial) believes that the damages are $100,000, but that the Plaintiff, the injured hunter, should have known the risk of hunting a wild lion and thus was 80% at fault. Based on these numbers, he would only recover $20,000.00.

Still, the problem would be that the company would be found liable, and I can almost promise you that hundreds of suits would follow and, ultimately, put Federal, or any other ammo maker, out of business.

I can understand the hunter being upset about what happened, but he should be upset at himself - and maybe his PH. A PH should check his client's guns and ammo and, more importantly, the applicability of the ammo to the game being hunted. Unfortunately, the injured client, as they always do, go after "deep pockets" - meaning Federal Cartrdidge Co. because it has (much) more money than the poor PH.

Zachary

Graybeard · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2003, 06:45:25 PM »

Strikes me that a fellow who goes hunting for ANY animal but most especially those that might tend to bite back should be a bit wiser in his bullet and ammo selection for such hunt. Don't go blaming someone else for your own stupidity or poor shooting.

I've heard many African hunters say the .458 Win. isn't the best medicine for the job even tho I've heard from just as many who seem to think it great. That's why Jack Lott invented the .458 Lott. He didn't like the results of use of the winny version.

Call me cruel if ya like but I wish the lion had eaten the guy and taken him out of the gene pool. Just one more of the modern liberals who refuse to take responsibility for their own mistakes and want to find someone else to blame.

GB

willis5 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 22, 2003, 06:48:42 AM »

ha ha. you said it, Graybeard!

Lawdog · « **Reply #6 on:** April 22, 2003, 08:39:42 AM »

Graybeard isn't that inflecting cruel and unusual punishment on the lion? In reality every hunter should be responsible enough to use a suitable rifle and cartridge for what ever situation should a rise. If you are going to hunt any animal that can be considered a "DANGEROUS" animal then it is up to you to use a cartridge/rifle combination big enough to do the job. You always hear people tell you can kill a black bear with a .223 or .22-250 over bait. Sure it can be done but what happens if you DON'T put that bullet in the right spot and you have to follow a wounded bear into the woods or brush. You going to have faith in that same rifle to stop a wounded bear in full charge? The hunter should bear the burden for HIS MISTAKE. Lawdog

willis5 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 22, 2003, 10:10:04 AM »

Shoot what you are comfortable shooting... yes, I along with many people on this forum agree with that, but I am very comfortable shooting my ruger 10/22; no mater how accurate I am with it, it will NEVER be my deer gun. Just like I wouldn't use 8 shot on a turkey or a super penetrating bullet that is not going to expand enough on a lion (even though I have never had the pleasure). I agree with you guys. If you don't do your homework before you go, you shouldn't go ESPECIALLY WITH DANGEROUS GAME...DUH!

Cheers,
Willis5

JACKNZ · « **Reply #8 on:** July 14, 2003, 05:00:49 PM »

Any hunter that points the barrel of a rifle at anything an after the shot the
critter gets up an bites his ........ just made his own mistake.This guy should get his act togeather or find another pastime. :x

Siskiyou · « **Reply #9 on:** July 15, 2003, 06:26:12 AM »

Interesting! How many tenths of a second does it take a lion to cover 90 feet. Darn few. On the other side is reaction time, shot placement, and how much damage the bullet does to the lion. Killing the lion, and stopping the lion are two different things.

Would our hunter want a round that blows up his trophy lion? I believe he would find that unacceptable. I have shot a number of jack rabbits and ground hogs with the .270 Win. and .243. The result, I have never been charged by either. The results are that half the animal is blown away.

Having never hunted lion, I expect to get the same result I would need a M79 40MM launcher.

How many times have heart shot game run a distance with their heart blown away. Clearly this man would not want an experienced hunter on the jury. There are inherit risk when one takes on certain activity. Most people want to brag about taking the risk, but want somebody else to pay the cost if they fail in the process.

Should I sue the makers of my boots if I take a fall while out in the woods because the lugs on the soles fail to keep me up right. Reminds me of the Woman who sued the Forest Service because her husband stuffed her down the pit toilet during a domestic dispute.