PRST STD US POSTAGE PAID BOISE, ID PERMIT 411
* This newsletter is intended to educate the public about personal injury, workers’ compensation, criminal defense, and family law issues. You can copy and distribute it as long as you copy the entire newsletter. But the newsletter is not intended to be legal advice; you should ask a lawyer about your specific case. Every case is different, and all case outcomes depend on unique facts and laws.
101 W. St. John St. Suite 206 Spartanburg, SC 29306
INSIDE this issue
1
Being Thankful for Our Unique Opportunity
2
Gratitude-Themed Games for Kids
Testimonials
3
Dealing With the Stress of a Legal Case
The Best Leftover Turkey Sandwich
4
Not Your Ordinary Turkey Shoot
If you no longer want to receive this newsletter, call Pam at 864.582.0416 or email rob@bhollandlawfirm.com .
NOT YOUR ORDINARY TURKEY SHOOT THE CRAZY CASE OF JACOBS V. KENT
It began like any other hunting excursion. Neil Jacobs was walking softly through the bushes, looking for a spot to hunker down and watch for a flock of turkeys. The only problem was that someone beat him to that neck of the woods. James Kent had established a hunting spot for himself, and, when he heard rustling and gobbling in some nearby bushes and saw a flash of red, he took aim and fired. Unfortunately, the movement in the bushes was not a turkey. Kent was horrified to find that he had shot Jacobs. Jacobs promptly moved for a partial summary judgment against Kent on the basis that he had failed to determine that Jacobs was not a turkey but, in fact, a human being. Kent cross-moved for summary judgment, saying Jacobs should have expected risks when he stepped into a popular hunting environment. When their case came before the Supreme Court of the 4th District of New York, the courts denied both the motion and the cross-motion. They agreed that Jacobs had assumed the inherent risks of hunting — just not the risks it would be unreasonable to assume, like getting shot by another hunter who thought you were a turkey. Beyond that, the courts did not pronounce judgment because they did not have enough verifiable facts.
failed to follow this rule when he shot Jacobs. They also could not determine whether the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, which Kent pointed to in his defense, was even applicable. The court also called into question whether Jacobs had also been negligent. Ultimately, the case didn’t move forward.
Jacobs asserted that turkey hunters should not shoot unless they can see the turkey and verify its gender. The court could not determine whether Kent had
Maybe next time, they should just try getting a turkey from the supermarket.
www.bhollandlawfirm.com
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker