[xzins]

I continue to think that there was no negligence on Cheney's part SINCE the man hit was part of a team; a participation that carried certain expectations with it.

That mitigates.

Especially, if as I've read, the man was in brush in an area that he as a team memeber knew he should not be occupying. I see no negligence on Cheney's part, if words have any meaning at all.

There is a no fault accident or the other hunter was negligent

[jude24]

I continue to think that there was no negligence on Cheney's part SINCE the man hit was part of a team; a participation that carried certain expectations with it. That mitigates.

Mitigates, yes. Absolves, no. You're operating under the mistaken assumption that, if the lawyer was at all negligent, it releases Cheney from liability.

In the old days (perhaps Marlowe took the bar under this system?), if the victim's own negligence contributed to his harm, he could not recover for the negligence of the defendant. Today, the plaintiff's award is simply reduced by the amount his negligence contributed to his harms.

In more simple terms, if the lawyer was 25% to blame, and Cheney 75% (numbers which I would consider reasonable), then the civil award would be 75% of the lawyer's damages.