The WCC found that grizzlies are "equal opportunity maulers" without regard to marijuana consumption.
The sleazeball amboo-lance chasers are rejoicing
That bear must have had the man-chies!
Maybe he gave the bears some of his dope, and they got the munchies.
Had to ponder the headline a bit to figure out who was smoking the pot.
Good thing it wasn’t the bear. He’d have finished all the munchies...
Looks like the Montana Supreme Courts is smoking something too!
The bear has a high old time.
It’s probably a good thing he wasn’t a moose handler. It could have been series.
This sounds to me like an opportunity for a government paid scientific study:
1) Base Case: Two groups of people, one smoking pot and one not smoking pot, and neither going near a grizzly - no attacks.
2) Case 1 - A group of Obama supporters (they’re the only ones dumb enough to do the experiment without smoking pot) not smoking pot and hanging out around a grizzly.
3) Case 2 - A group of people smoking pot and hanging out around a grizzly.
My hypothesis is that grizzlies prefer pot smokers because not even a grizzly likes Obama supporters.
To take out the Obama bias, you would have to find some non-pot-smoking, non-Obama supporters stupid enough to hang out with grizzlies - not possibe!
Playing footsie with a wild animal is pretty **mn stupid.
We`ve seen the same thing many times up in the Smokies,except thank heavens never seen someone attacked
Bet this idiot never does this again high or not
They had a mounted grizzly bear at Bass Pro Shop in Nashville before the great flood,scary monster
In exchange for a pretty much guaranteed payout, employees give up any general damages - all you can get is medical bills plus a lump sum for disability (or a monthly payment for temporary disability). There's not a lot of money in it for the ambulance chasers, they are after the big tort verdicts with general damages, pain & suffering, emotional distress, etc. etc. The guys who do this tend to work volume for a small fee.
Employers, on the other hand, in exchange for a reduced payout, give up the usual tort defenses such as contributory negligence, etc. A defense of "wilful misconduct" is generally still available, but the required level of proof is pretty high, and you also have to prove causation.
It's a little hard to tell from the article, but it appears that the court rejected a wilful misconduct defense, finding a lack of causation between Hopkins's use of weed and the mauling. If he had gotten high (or drunk) and driven a motor vehicle or operated machinery, I think you'd see a different result due to wilful misconduct causing the injury.
suffered injuries to his legs and buttocks
***
estimated $35,000 in discounted medical bills
He did not suffer a little scratch.
Was the Breck Hair Girl involved in this case?
Hold muh bear and watch this....