Lussier v. Bessette

16 A.3d 580 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Defendants Rene Lussier, Anthony Bessette, and Adam Reed were hunting with their friend Collin Viens, who is not a party to this lawsuit. During the hunt, Viens accidentally shot and killed P, who was seated in the cab of a tractor in one of his fields. Viens was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The hunting party was engaged in a practice known as “pushing” or “driving.” Ds were the pushers, and Mr. Viens was the sitter. By agreement of the group, Viens was positioned in a farm field at the northeast corner of P's woodlot so that he could see along the treeline into both the bordering fields. Ds gave Viens approximately ten minutes to go ahead of them before they began walking the woods. No defendant had walked Viens's position that day and none could see Viens or the tractor at the time of the shooting. P was to the east of where Viens was sitting. From his position, Viens would have been able to take shots at game emerging from the treelines in both easterly and southerly directions. There were also shots available in a westerly direction, though due to the setup of the hunt, a shot in that direction was unlikely. Ds were walking in the woods and heard Viens fire two shots. In the first shot, the gun had accidentally discharged. Viens then fired a second shot into the woods to make it appear that he was shooting at game. While waiting in the field, Viens had shouldered his rifle, released the safety, and with his finger on the trigger, scanned his surroundings through the scope of the rifle. Viens saw the tractor through his scope immediately prior to his rifle discharging, killing P. At the time of the shooting, Viens was standing approximately 240 yards from P and had a clear view of the tractor. Viens' handling of his rifle in the manner described violated several basic rules of hunting. Viens had no hunting license at the time of the shooting. Ds were aware that Viens had passed his hunter's safety course and obtained his Hunter Education Certification. Ds knew that Viens was a relatively novice hunter. P filed a wrongful death action. Ds moved for summary judgment. The court found that Ds could not be held liable under a “concerted action” or “aiders and abettors” theory because P had failed to show that Viens and Ds acted knowingly in accord with a plan that they had agreed to participate in. The court found that given the facts of this case there was simply no evidence that would support a conclusion that any one of the three defendants assisted or encouraged Viens to recklessly fire a shot at the tractor in which the victim was sitting. In order to be liable under a concerted action theory, ds needed to have some knowledge that they were encouraging specific, tortious conduct. P appealed.