Delgado v. Lohmar
1979 Minn. LEXIS 1755, 289 N.W.2d 479 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When members of a hunting party are engaged in the dangerous activity of hunting on another person's land without consent, each hunter has an individual duty to warn other members of the party of the presence of third persons they know are in the area.
Facts:
- Four defendants, Daniels, Greenwood, Martini, and Knox, informally decided to go on a grouse-hunting trip on property belonging to Daniels' uncle, Donald Seig.
- While hunting, Martini wounded a grouse which then flew onto the adjacent property owned by the plaintiff.
- The hunters, knowing the land did not belong to Seig, crossed a fence onto the plaintiff's property to retrieve the bird and continued to hunt there without permission.
- The plaintiff, hearing shotgun blasts, walked across his cornfield toward the hunters to ask them to leave, shouting and whistling to attract their attention.
- The plaintiff believed at least one of the defendants saw him and began talking to the others.
- As the plaintiff approached, a bird flew up, and Daniels raised his gun to shoot.
- Daniels fired, accidentally striking the plaintiff and causing permanent blindness; almost simultaneously, Greenwood fired and hit the bird.
- All defendants later stated they never saw or heard the plaintiff before the shot was fired.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff and his wife brought a lawsuit against five hunters in the Aitkin County District Court (trial court).
- One defendant, Lohmar, was dismissed from the suit.
- The plaintiffs settled their claim against the shooter, defendant Daniels, executing a covenant not to sue.
- The remaining three defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding as a matter of law that they were not engaged in a joint enterprise and there were not sufficient facts for a negligence claim.
- The plaintiff appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a member of a hunting party have a legal duty to warn other hunters in the group of the presence of a third person when the party is knowingly hunting on private property without the owner's consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Wahl, Justice.
Yes, a member of a hunting party has a duty to warn others in the group of a person's presence under these circumstances. The court rejected the argument that the hunters were in a 'joint enterprise' that would make them all liable for the shooter's actions. The test for joint enterprise requires a common purpose and, critically, a right to control the means used to carry out that purpose. Here, each hunter had exclusive control over his own gun and made his own split-second decisions, so there was no mutual right of control. However, the court established a separate basis for liability. Generally, there is no duty to protect a stranger from the actions of a third person. But an exception applies here because hunting with high-powered firearms is an 'extremely dangerous activity.' When hunters knowingly trespass onto another's land, they create an unreasonable risk of harm to the occupants. This creates a duty of due care for each hunter to be mindful of the danger and to warn his fellow hunters of any third persons he knows are in the area. Because there is a factual dispute over whether any of the defendants saw the plaintiff, the case must be sent back for a jury to decide.
Analysis:
This decision is significant because it establishes a specific duty of care for co-participants in a dangerous recreational activity, even in the absence of a traditional 'special relationship.' While the court narrowly construed the 'joint enterprise' doctrine in a non-commercial context, it created a new avenue for liability based on the confluence of a dangerous activity (hunting) and a wrongful act (trespassing). This precedent imposes a duty on individuals within a group to take reasonable steps, such as giving a warning, to prevent foreseeable harm to third parties endangered by the group's collective actions. The ruling implies that participants in other inherently dangerous group activities might also bear a similar duty to warn each other of known hazards.
