In October 2001, Matt Love was hunting with a tree stand and safety belt in Jefferson County, Missouri. He was harnessed to the tree with a tree stand safety belt. While he hunted, this safety belt was the only thing that connected him to the tree.

While using the belt, Mr. Love fell more than 25 feet. He suffered fractured vertebrae, resulting in paralysis. Mr. Love’s life care plan indicated projected that he would incur lifetime medical costs exceeding $2.2 million.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Love alleged that his fall was caused when his tree stand safety belt failed. The two-piece safety belt was designed and manufactured by API Outdoors and Outland Sports.

Mr. Love’s lawsuit was recently settled for an undisclosed amount. Mr. Scott Hofer, attorney for API and Outland, indicates that his clients will soon be bringing a suit for contribution and/or indemnity against the manufacturer of the belt buckle on the theory that buckle was designed in such a way that it could improperly release.

One piece of the safety belt was an adjustable loop while the other piece included a buckle that was similar to a seat belt buckle. According to the manufacturers, the loop portion was to be placed around the user’s torso. The loop piece was then to be attached to the buckled piece (which was to be wrapped around the tree). The buckle of the “buckle piece” was the point of connection between the two pieces.

The two pieces comprising the safety belt were made of identical black seat belt fabric. The two pieces of the two-piece belt were not labeled. The manufacturer contended that it was intuitive to apply the buckle piece to the hunter and the loop piece to the tree.

Matt Love used the two-piece belt in reverse fashion by placing the “loop” portion around the tree (rather than around his body) and the “buckle” portion around his body (rather than around the tree).

Carol Pollack-Nelsen, the human factors expert for Mr. Love, concluded that interchanging the two belt loops was foreseeable and that it could result in a fall from the tree or strangulation. Based on her examination of the two-piece belt, she gave the opinion that the two belt pieces appeared similar and that there were no markings on the belts themselves to direct proper use. She further found that placing the buckle on the tree and the loop section over the user (the opposite of what the manufacturers intended) was actually easier, faster and more intuitive for most users. In this reverse configuration, however, the buckle piece can release the loop portion causing the hunter to fall. Mr. Love alleged that this is what happened to him.

According to Ms. Pollack-Nelsen’s opinion, it would not be obvious to the average consumer that interchanging the two belt portions would be dangerous.

During the litigation, Mr. Love’s attorney, Jim Lemonds, conducted a 60-person study which demonstrated that the configuration intended by the manufacturer was not obvious or practical. In the study conducted by Mr. Lemonds, 80% of the participants who were given the two-piece belt without instructions or labels put on the belt the same “reverse” manner as Mr. Love.

Ms. Pollack-Nelsen concluded that the safety belt assembly should have been designed to eliminate these risks. This could have been accomplished in several ways:

A) eliminating the risk by selling full body harnesses rather than the two-piece belt assembly;
B.) providing a belt with a different design we’re interchanging the belt sections would not present risks of unthreatening or strangulation; or
C) placing conspicuous warnings and labels on the belts to direct consumer use

Share This