Michigan Deer Hunting Injuries: Who May Be Liable?

Depending on how it happened, fault in a hunting injury could apply to another hunter, an equipment manufacturer or seller, a landowner or the person organizing the hunt. The answer depends on how the injury happened and what protections applied.

What standard applies to a claim against another hunter?

A claim against another hunter depends on whether ordinary negligence or reckless misconduct applies. Ordinary negligence means failing to use the care a reasonably careful person would use in the circumstances. For hunters that usually depends on whether the injured person was a fellow hunter and how they were hurt. That standard does not govern every injury between hunters.

Hunting is an inherently risky activity, so when someone is injured while hunting, negligence only applies if there was reckless misconduct, which requires proof beyond ordinary carelessness. If the particular risk was not inherent in the activity, ordinary negligence standards apply under Payne v Payne.

Whether or not the activity is considered inherently risky depends on the specific way the injury happened and what a reasonable participant would have foreseen under those circumstances. The hunters’ relationship and experience and the setting and planned rules for the hunt can matter.

If the person injured wasn’t participating in the hunt but was still owed a duty of care by the hunter, the ordinary negligence rules apply instead. That requires proof that the hunter’s actions led to the injury, consistent with Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions, 10.02 and 15.01. Other statutory duties or protections may affect the claim.

How does your share of fault affect damages?

The injured person’s share of fault generally reduces damages under MCL 600.2959. If that fault is more than 50%, Michigan law bars noneconomic damages, while only reducing economic damages by that percentage. Having some shared fault doesn’t automatically defeat the entire claim, although separate statutory defenses may.

Can defective hunting equipment support a claim?

Yes. A defect in a tree stand, safety harness or climbing gear may support a claim depending on the facts of the case. A product-liability claim can itself be based on negligence, as explained in Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions, 25.31-25.32.

A fall or broken part does not, by itself, establish a defect. For a claim involving how the equipment was designed or made, Michigan’s statute requires proof that the product was not reasonably safe when it left the relevant manufacturer’s or seller’s control.

The statute also requires proof there was a safer, practical and economically feasible way to produce the equipment available at that time, as stated in MCL 600.2946(2). The evidence must show that the alternative would have prevented the harm without significantly reducing the product’s usefulness or creating an equal or greater risk.

The alleged defect must also be a cause of the injury, and the injury must be a natural and probable result of that defect.

A seller that did not manufacture the equipment is not liable just for selling it. Under MCL 600.2947(6), the seller’s own failure to exercise reasonable care regarding the product must proximately cause the injury. An applicable breach of a warranty imposed by law can be part of that analysis, but is not sufficient by itself. A seller may also be liable if it made an express warranty, the product failed to meet it and that failure proximately caused the harm. An express warranty is a specific representation about the product’s characteristics or standards, as explained in Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions, 25.11 and 25.21 Notes on Use.

Under MCL 600.2947(1)-(2), an alteration or misuse that caused the harm can defeat manufacturer or seller liability unless it was reasonably foreseeable. The definitions of alteration and misuse in MCL 600.2945 make installation, maintenance and use important to the investigation. Preserve evidence of who installed the stand, how the harness was attached, the equipment’s condition and the instructions supplied with it. The court resolves those statutory alteration, misuse and foreseeability issues.

Someone’s unsafe conduct and a product defect can both contribute to the same injury, explained in Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions, 25.02-25.03. A claim against each defendant still needs support based on that defendant’s conduct or product, and any applicable legal protections remain relevant. Michigan Legal Center’s Michigan defective-product injury guide explains the broader product-claim issues.

How do hunting-law violations affect an injury claim?

An applicable hunting-law violation may support negligence when the law protects the injured person against that type of harm. A regulatory violation may be evidence of negligence. A violation alone does not establish the full claim. An excuse, a special evidence restriction or the hunting-companion standard may change the analysis.

Michigan’s general rule prohibits hunting with a firearm within 150 yards of an occupied building, dwelling, house, residence, cabin, barn or any other building used in connection with a farm operation, without written permission from the property’s owner, renter or occupant.

Under MCL 324.40114(11), a municipality may adopt an ordinance setting a shorter firearm-hunting distance as part of a deer-management plan. The general 150-yard requirement does not apply in the circumstances addressed by that ordinance. Check the actual location and ordinance; informal permission does not replace the applicable requirements.

Under MCL 324.40116(2)-(3), failure to comply with Michigan’s hunter-orange statute is not evidence of negligence in a civil action for that individual’s injury or wrongful death. Other independent forms of fault may still affect the claim. The statute also contains exceptions to its clothing requirement, including taking deer with a bow or crossbow during archery deer season.

Michigan’s land-entry statute, MCL 324.73102, requires consent from the owner, lessee or agent to hunt on farm property or connected woods, whether or not they are fenced or posted. For other private property, the statute’s consent rule applies to land fenced or enclosed to exclude intruders, or posted against entry as the statute requires. Retrieving a wounded deer does not replace required consent. Entry legality does not by itself settle liability for an injury or the landowner’s statutory protection.

When can a landowner or hunt operator be responsible?

A landowner or hunt operator may be responsible for a dangerous condition or unsafe conduct, but their role, the payment arrangement and Michigan’s recreational-use protections can limit the claim. Identify who owned, possessed or controlled the site and stand, who installed or maintained the equipment and what each person knew about the hazard. An operator’s role and any applicable statutory protection need separate review.

Hunting on someone else’s land without paying blocks a claim unless the injuries were caused by that landholder’s gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct. Ordinary negligence alone is generally insufficient. This protection under MCL 324.73301(1) covers entry with or without permission, subject to the statute’s exceptions; it is not absolute immunity for every property owner or every injury.

Gross negligence concerns conduct so reckless that it shows a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury will result, as explained in Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions, 14.10-14.12. Willful and wanton misconduct involves intent to harm, or indifference so extreme that it amounts to a willingness for harm to occur.

Paid hunting on a qualifying farm used in agricultural production has separate conditions under MCL 324.73301(5). A condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm must have caused the injury, and all of the following must apply:

• The owner, tenant or lessee knew or had reason to know about the condition or risk.
• That landholder failed to use reasonable care to make the condition safe or warn the hunter.
• The injured person did not know, or did not have reason to know, about the condition or risk.

Preserve records showing who received the payment and what it covered.

Payment alone does not determine which liability standard applies. The special paid-farm rule applies only to qualifying farms. On other paid property, an ordinary-negligence claim may be possible if an applicable duty and failure to use reasonable care caused the injury. Those negligence requirements are explained in Negligence requirements in Lares, but other protections still need review. A guide who participated in the hunt may also raise the hunting-companion standard applied in Payne v Payne.

What evidence should you preserve after a hunting injury?

Document or collect evidence only if it’s safe to do so. Then preserve the equipment and records that can show how the injury happened, who controlled the relevant conditions and what losses resulted. These steps can help preserve useful evidence:

• Preserve equipment and product records, including the stand, harness, climbing gear and associated parts; model and serial numbers; receipts; packaging; and the instructions and warnings supplied with the product. Keep the equipment in its existing condition. Arrange appropriate inspection and preservation before repairing, altering, returning or discarding it.
• Keep scene evidence, including photographs of the stand, attachments, tree, ground, shooting positions and nearby buildings; location and distance information; and original trail-camera files. Keep original photographs and videos as well as any copies.
• Keep witness names and contact information, hunt instructions, organizer communications and police or Michigan Department of Natural Resources report numbers.
• Preserve access and payment records, including written permission, messages about oral consent, leases, booking documents, receipts and records identifying who was paid and for what.
• Keep injury and loss records, including medical records, bills, wage-loss documentation and records of assistance needed because of the injury.

How long do you have to file a Michigan hunting injury claim?

Obtain legal review promptly. Michigan generally provides three-year limitation periods for injury and product-liability actions under MCL 600.5805(2), (12) and (14), but the actual deadline depends on the claim and rules that can change when the clock begins or impose separate limits. Do not assume every hunting claim expires exactly three years after the incident.

If the injury was fatal, a wrongful-death action is brought through the estate’s personal representative under MCL 600.2922(1)-(2) and depends on an underlying claim the injured person could have pursued had they survived. Death does not remove product-liability requirements or recreational-use protections. See Michigan Legal Center’s Michigan wrongful-death deadline guide for the broader deadline questions.

How can Michigan Legal Center help protect your claim?

Michigan Legal Center can help protect your claim by reviewing evidence-preservation steps and filing deadlines before evidence is lost or a deadline passes.

For a review of what caused a hunting injury, the potentially responsible parties, preserved evidence and applicable deadlines, contact Michigan Legal Center. If a stand, harness or climbing product may have contributed, Michigan Legal Center’s product-liability practice page provides additional information.