Professional Hunter shot by client: update on Stu Taylor

Ole Bally said:

No! He hasn't the spineless...... He has not acknowledged any form of responsibility... we are pursuing legal action against his insurers now...but we need help from a US lawyer and haven't any idea where to start...without us getting ripped off even further!
Anyone with ideas?
Stu is one of those characters that would prefer a quiet life and not rock the boat.
But I personally feel that we should pursue this with the insurance company... anyone?

Click to expand...

Ole Bally,

Sorry, the above response was meant to be to you not Red Leg.

All the best.

I don't think Mr. Taylor will have any trouble being indemnified for his injury (physical, emotional, earnings, etc.). On many levels, there is no reason/need for this to go to court/trial. I assure you, when facts are laid out.... which they have been by the shooter himself. There is really no reason to slow play it. Insurance companies would rather pay a settlement, than years of expensive attorney fees... then a big settlement too.

Ole Bally said:

No! He hasn't the spineless...... He has not acknowledged any form of responsibility... we are pursuing legal action against his insurers now...but we need help from a US lawyer and haven't any idea where to start...without us getting ripped off even further!
Anyone with ideas?
Stu is one of those characters that would prefer a quiet life and not rock the boat.
But I personally feel that we should pursue this with the insurance company... anyone?

Click to expand...

OB,

The actions or perhaps lack thereof by Tim Herald after this incident have been kicked around on other websites. The comments have run all over the place with people taking sides. Most of those people from my perspective were taking a side with having but just a few of the facts on the matter. Personally I try my best to not get caught up in such situations. Casting judgment unhampered by facts is not a good thing to do in my opinion.

Having said that, I'm not accusing you of such. In fact, it seems you have a personal relationship with Stu and therefore may indeed have much more knowledge than I or most of the folks here on AH and other similar websites. Can you confirm this? I've seen my share of trials by internet and ordinarily reasonable people quickly take sides only to later have egg on their faces once more of the facts come out.

I ask as I can see one plausible explanation for Tim's apparent lack of taking responsibility. If in fact he was carrying some type of insurance that would cover this situation, he may be under a gag order by the insurance company with the threat of them not covering him if he speaks out. Do I know this to be true? No, it's just as I say a plausible scenario.

I was in an auto accident in 2010 I think it was. It was my fault and I freely told the police that responded so. I was ticketed. I of course have auto insurance and was told sometime shortly thereafter by the insurance company that they would be handling the bills of the gent. Great I thought and didn't hear anything more until nearly two years later. It seemed the gent I hit was having trouble getting some of his medical bills (which the insurance company was questioning) paid. So, he sued me which came as a big surprise as I again was under the impression the issue had long since been put to rest. Well now with an insurance company lawyer stepping in came some very explicit instructions to me with regards to communication between me and this other guy. Maybe this is the case with Mr. Herald? Again I don't know.

If you have direct first hand information that eliminates that possibility, please share.

You can bet if this in litigation has began & counsel has been retained.... Mr. Herald has been told to shut up, don't say a word, and stay of the internet. Regardless of guilt, negligence, etc. I would be very surprised if this doesn't get handled rather swiftly.

To All,
Thank you for your responses, advice and kind wishes... I have relayed them onto Stu.
Stu is indeed a close family friend, I've known him since he was little.
I have no doubt that Mr Herald has had a gag order.... it just seems to make sense.
The litigation is in motion currently with Stu having retained a South African Lawyer and a US Lawyer. The issue of the statute of limitations came up and they have to have a suit in place by August. This is apparently happening.
I suppose my dilemma and issue come from more of an empathetic and moral stand point than anything else.
I was always taught to 'man up' to things that I've done wrong and I reckon that shooting someone through the back would qualify for a big 'I'm sorry, how can I help you fix that?' My conscience and upbringing simply wouldn't allow me to be gagged!
Being totally honest, Stu's shoulder is still a mess and he manages the pains and discomfort of his physiotherapy very well through sheer guts! That he has been able to rehab it to where it is now shows some incredible courage and spunk. He remains a positive person throughout. His determination to hunt again should not be taken in any way that may detract from the fact that he was shot by a firearm producing >4050 ftlbs of pressure at the muzzle and he was only feet away. Those same firearms that we use to brain shoot Elephant through 10 to 12" of bone at 50 yards plus.
In the words of my favourite actor in my favourite movie " That's all I have to say 'bout that!"... His mom also said 'stupid is as stupid does'!!

Totally agree... There should be no process. If negligent, admit to & speed up the settlement. Avoid litigation, unneeded expenses & additional anguish.

Good to hear Stu is recovering well...............I agree Ole Bally. If Tim would have "manned up", this situation would have escalated to the point it's at now.

Ole Bally said:

No! He hasn't the spineless...... He has not acknowledged any form of responsibility... we are pursuing legal action against his insurers now...but we need help from a US lawyer and haven't any idea where to start...without us getting ripped off even further!
Anyone with ideas?
Stu is one of those characters that would prefer a quiet life and not rock the boat.
But I personally feel that we should pursue this with the insurance company... anyone?

Click to expand...

Before we judge Tim we must put ourselves in his shoes and evaluate his options.

1) "Man up" and pay whatever amount for whatever length of time out of his own pocket.
2) Allow his insurance to come to a settlement and pay only his deductible. This is why we have insurance - to prevent option 1.

Once option 2 has been completed, he still has the option to "man up" as much as he likes without potentially losing his home etc etc etc. If he "mans up" right off the bat he risks everything and Stu gains nothing more than he already will receive. (possibly less once Tim is bankrupt and the statute of limitations for legal action have expired)

The insurance company is the entity that needs to "man up" and pay the claim expediently. There should be no need for Stu to sue them to get this money and that is where the problem lies.

To me it seems a clear choice, despite how it may appear to some.

An insurance company can not pay a claim in which there is no coverage for. Example, Personal Liability.... Homeowners, Umbrella. Does not accept liability for a claim arising from Business Pursuits. I am guessing since this was a TV show & he is/was compensated for, then that qualifies as a business pursuit. Therefore, that would not pay. Not the insurance company's fault. It lies with the TV shows policy/policies..... if the production company even has insurance. You would be surprised just how many operations out there are NOT insured & if so.... how minimally, and not adequately, because of cost or the attitude.... "what is the worst that could happen".

BWH said:

An insurance company can not pay a claim in which there is no coverage for. Example, Personal Liability.... Homeowners, Umbrella. Does not accept liability for a claim arising from Business Pursuits. I am guessing since this was a TV show & he is/was compensated for, then that qualifies as a business pursuit. Therefore, that would not pay. Not the insurance company's fault. It lies with the TV shows policy/policies..... if the production company even has insurance. You would be surprised just how many operations out there are NOT insured & if so.... how minimally, and not adequately, because of cost or the attitude.... "what is the worst that could happen".

Click to expand...

Since the discussion has largely revolved around insurance I am assuming he has business insurance (that may or may not cover an event like this). If not the situation would of course be quite different.

I carry 5 mil liability which covers me for any events occurring while conducting my business with the exception of deliberately negligent acts, which in this case would be intentionally shooting Stu.

Correct sir. And if Mr. Herald has coverage, I don't think the insurance companies would waste anytime moving forward in a case like this. With facts, admissions, video, etc. Obviously, unintentional act. However, it was his negligence. Typically, what slows & stymies the process is the litigious side. Depositions, witnesses, etc..... If coverage is there & the company has been presented with the suit, I am very surprised they have not talked dollars & cents (settlement) with Stu Taylor.

I don't disagree with the understanding that the insurance should ultimately handle this. When I made a comment about Tim "manning up" it wasn't restricted to forking money out of his pocket. There were a lot of things he could/should have done beside bankrupting himself and his family. I know Tim was extremely remorseful for what happened, but I feel like he could have done more to help out Stu and his family during his recovery. I admit I don't know everything Tim did or did not do, but considering his connections in this business I feel it could have been a lot more. I would like to believe someone in his circumstances would have headed up fundraisers, gathered sponsor donations, auctioned hunts to be televised for his show, donated proceeds from endorsements, etc... to help out until eventual litigation was settled. If any of these things happened, then I stand corrected and I apologize.

Totally agree with that Buff!

Ole Bally said:

To All,
Thank you for your responses, advice and kind wishes... I have relayed them onto Stu.
Stu is indeed a close family friend, I've known him since he was little.
I have no doubt that Mr Herald has had a gag order.... it just seems to make sense.
The litigation is in motion currently with Stu having retained a South African Lawyer and a US Lawyer. The issue of the statute of limitations came up and they have to have a suit in place by August. This is apparently happening.
I suppose my dilemma and issue come from more of an empathetic and moral stand point than anything else.
I was always taught to 'man up' to things that I've done wrong and I reckon that shooting someone through the back would qualify for a big 'I'm sorry, how can I help you fix that?' My conscience and upbringing simply wouldn't allow me to be gagged!
Being totally honest, Stu's shoulder is still a mess and he manages the pains and discomfort of his physiotherapy very well through sheer guts! That he has been able to rehab it to where it is now shows some incredible courage and spunk. He remains a positive person throughout. His determination to hunt again should not be taken in any way that may detract from the fact that he was shot by a firearm producing >4050 ftlbs of pressure at the muzzle and he was only feet away. Those same firearms that we use to brain shoot Elephant through 10 to 12" of bone at 50 yards plus.
In the words of my favourite actor in my favourite movie " That's all I have to say 'bout that!"... His mom also said 'stupid is as stupid does'!!

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply Ole Bally and understanding that my previous post was done so with respect. We used to in this country be able to handle things just as you wished they would be and perhaps still are in your part of the world. And in some circumstances I think many times are here, but mostly that's a tradition that has passed.

I do hope there is insurance in place, that it will properly cover Stu and that this get resolved soon. I had the impression that Tim had hunted with Stu in the past and that they were friends. If that was the case, I also hope that they will be able to resume their friendship.

My best to Stu on his recovery!

If the insurance hasn't settled yet, it says a lot about the case. No insurance company (if run properly) would ever settle unless they know that they would for sure lose in court.

Saul said:

If the insurance hasn't settled yet, it says a lot about the case. No insurance company (if run properly) would ever settle unless they know that they would for sure lose in court.

Click to expand...

Or if they didn't feel the cost of court would be offset by a reduced award. Its all about $$$ to them, risk-reward, nothing more.

Kudos to the young man for persevering!

Whipping a dead horse?

This post is primarily directed toward newer hunters of Africa's magnificent game animals and /or hunters who are just starting to become interested in large bore rifles and related equipment, for the hunting of heavy game in thick foliage / at close range.

My words, however accusatory they may seem, are not intended as an insult to the shooter in this case (no doubt he is a very excellent person in general) but as in any training scenario based on human error, sometimes the chips must fall on sore toes.

And, I apologize for the length of the following rant but, "firearm related hunting accidents" make me crazier than I already am.

Anyway, I watched the film wherein this PH was shot.

It seemed alarming to me that the Client would be walking behind other members of the hunting party, with a live round in his rifle's chamber.

The PHs I know would not ever knowingly tolerate this.

I wonder then if the PH in this case knew that the Client had chambered a round, prior to the shot actually being fired.

Furthermore, the Client's scope appeard entirely too large for the bush conditions he was hunting in and doubly so when you consider it was on a .458 caliber rifle, thick bush or otherwise.

A .458 is not generally used for long shots and so what would inspire this particular Client to place what looks like a long range type scope on his .458 ?

Maybe without being handicapped by the narrow field of view that large scopes certainly have, he might've had a chance to see everything down range simultaneously (especially people), when the buffalo suddenly ran towards them.

Trying to locate a moving target at close range by looking through a large scope is difficult at best and impossible at worst, never mind a dangerous moving target at close range, further complicated by non-target things (your PH for one example) bouncing around between you and the real target, swiftly seeing everything possible that is down range is paramount.

The shooter claimed he stepped backward into a hole and that is why his .458 discharged.

Not sure it was appropriate for the Client to shoulder his rifle at all, knowing he (the Client) was not up at the front of the line.

Any way, when the Client leveled his rifle toward the threat, if he just could have seen clearly all that was down range, he presumably would not have placed his finger on the trigger at all, whether standing his ground or stepping into a hole or any other activities imaginable.

Changing your footing with your finger still on the trigger is obviously a bloody dangerous idea.

There may come the time in any Dangerous Game Hunter's experiences that his or her only option is to stand their ground and shoot it out.

When that happens, standing still like the cast iron soul that you should be, and shooting straight, is the only way to prevail (definitely not moving over broken ground with your finger on the trigger).

Furthermore:

Always do as your PH requests, including when to carry your rifle with an empty chamber.

Most of them were born & raised with a rifle in their hands and they really do know what they are doing.

Also, be cautious of those at home who advise you to bring some huge scope to hunt in thick, very typical African bush conditions.

Gun store clerks and once a year deer hunters will sometimes tell you that you need some big scope for Africa, "in case you see the trophy of a lifetime at long range", even though they themselves have never been there and likely never will.

The truth is that if you practice enough with a 4x scope, you can hit things way out there and it will let you get on running game at close range quickly as well, again - with practice.

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting that you necessarily avoid variable power scopes just because I avoid them.

I'm simply saying, that for normal Africa hunting conditions, you need to avoid all these giant telescopes so popular these days (4.5 to 14x and 6 to 18x with 50mm or more front lens, in extra high rings, etc., etc.,) they're big and clunky and they're not needed for the majority of African hunting conditions.

Such huge contraptions could potentially make it difficult or impossible at very close range, to distinguish a maneuvering PH from a charging buffalo.

Even in open geography like the Eastern Cape, most of Namibia, grassveld areas and similar places for most African species, you should need no more than a 6x scope with a 36mm front lens at most and I found a 4x Zeiss to actually be plenty for that specialized, wide open desert type of hunting in Southern Namibia.

If you cannot hit a springbok through the heart-lungs at 400 paces with a 6x scope, from the sticks or even a 4x scope, on a normal rifle like the 30-06, or .280 Remington, etc., you do not need a larger scope, you just need to practice more before embarking on your safari.

For leopard in poor light, you might want a large front lens to draw in more light but my rant here is not for seasoned leopard hunters, it is more for those beginning general "PG" hunters who typically soon progress toward buffalo hunting (I definitely classify myself as a beginner to hunting in Africa).

However, in repetition I promise you that probably 90% of the hunting conditions you will encounter in most of the Southern African countries is "thorn bush".

In other words it is what we would call in N. America "woods hunting conditions" or "brush hunting conditions" with most shots averaging around 75 yards or less, on virtually all species found there but, especially for buffalo.

If you remember nothing else from this senile old buzzard, remember this:
After your PH whispers for you to chamber a round, just keep your dang trigger finger out straight on the side of your rifle, well above the trigger area, until your feet are well planted and you are actually aiming at your target, free of PHs and other potential hazards down range.

If suddenly you are instructed to move a bit for a better view of your quarry, re-engage the so called safety catch on your rifle, and keep your finger straight again as mentioned above until re-settled into your permanent shooting position AND you are actually aiming at your target.

Stu,
May your feet always be swift, your aim always be true and your beers always bought by other blokes.

Velo Dog.

Velo, basically I agree with you here, but I beg to differ on scopes and the benefit of larger magnification..

As you I am a novice to african hunting..

I changed from a 6x scope to a 3-12 x 50 Schmidt&Bender for hunting the open landscape of Namibia. For me that was a wise decision. I am pretty sure that better optics secured some of the 250 - 300m shots I took.

But surely you dont need that on DG. I have a small compact Leupold 1.25 - 4 on my .375H&H for such..

I think the trick is to vary scopes to hunting conditions....and I always bring a reserve scope..Last year my buddys Zeiss broke down...he had brougth a spare, back to the farm, change over, re-zero and back to business within an hour..

I also generally agree. I no longer take a scope to Africa that cannot be instantly dismounted. Learned behavior during a leopard follow-up which is another story for another discussion. Could not disagree more with the unchambered rifle. If I am participating in a follow-up (and I have on many) I will have a rifle with a round in the chamber. The weapon will be on safe and my finger will be outside the trigger guard. The PH is certainly within his rights to order me to stay put, but if I am coming along it will be with a ready weapon. That said, I have spent a lifetime in the profession of arms, and what can be seen in the video is typical of what occurs with untrained soldiers in a close combat scenario. An excited, scared member of a fire team let's loose with a round, and afterwards has no clue how it happened (not surprisingly, this tends to happen in National Guard formations rather than full time infantry units at about a ten to one incident rate.) Close combat awareness takes an enormous amount of training (and what else is an encounter with a wounded buffalo in dense cover) - and it is not the same as simply having lots of experience going hunting. Were I a PH, I would probably order any client to stay put even if following up a dik-dik. As a client, I personally would not like it one little bit, but as a PH, I have enough to worry about without adding friendly fire.