Judge awards $1.9 million to family of boy killed by bear

When you step foot into the backcountry, you step out of civilization. By definition, the backcountry is wild. We maintain and preserve the wilderness FROM OURSELVES. The danger as well as the risks are implied.

That being said, if you step out onto train tracks and get hit by a train, is it the fault of the railroad for lack of notification stating that a train may pass through and hit you? Or is it the individual (in this case the parents of the victim) that is neglectful of the risks involved? It matters little if that train had previously ran over anyone because the risk is implied.

Do you swim in the ocean after shark attacks occur? If you swim in the ocean you do. What about the Florida coast that sees more attacks than most? Who is at fault of another attack? Is the ocean not wild?
Whist's next? Sign a waiver before you have a swim? Before you head into the backcountry? Before you cross train tracks? This is ridiculous.

**edit: any time there is a loss of life it is tragic. I am sorrowful for their lost. My questioning regarding the ruling is where the burden of responsibility lies and where that line is. We live in a litigious society where blame is usually placed not on ones self. At some point, we have to start being responsible for our own actions. The family did not demonstrate an ounce of backcountry knowledge and did not take the proper precautions. The only fault (imho) is the ranger's belief that those entering the backcountry do so having taken the proper steps to ensure their safety and the safety of their loved ones.

As I read it, a few people dropped the ball, that the prior attack on Francom was not just an ice-chest raid, but an actual human attack.

Some may disagree with the way I interpret $1.9 million – That isn't really huge these days. I don't think it says close the back-country or whatever. I think it just says be more on-the-ball with human attacks. Even on Sunday.

Update/Note: we had a lawsuit back in the 80's that forced a local beach city to put up ridiculous "caution: the ocean is dangerous" signs. If I recall correctly, someone dove into a sandbar and collected $30 million.

I have to wonder how many of you who have responded with the "accidents like this usually take out the idiots which really helps improve our gene pool" sentiment actually read the court decision or are commenting based on reading the headlines and other people's comments. I'm a hiker who firmly believes that I'm responsible for my own safety and my initial reaction after reading a media article regarding the award was similar, but after reading the court decision, I'm inclined to agree that someone didn't do their job and, as a direct result, a child lost his life. It would have and should have been such a simple task to warn that family.

Now, whether it should or shouldn't be the agency's job to protect people from such "accidents" may be debatable but that's not what the case was about.

I think the 65% is the only question. By their own protocals it looked like the gov't dropped the ball. But cooking dinner at the campsite and having food in the tent….

That might up the blame a bit in my book.

IMO the award was appropriate. It would've taken very little effort for a ranger to post a sign on the CG entrance or paystation. They had a responsibility to warn the public of a known danger and they failed, costing a child's death.

I grew up in this area, and have spent alot of time in that canyon. I rode my bike over the summit last summer.

This is not a "backcountry" area by any means. It is a heavily used area, with recreational car traffic running all day everyday, along with compartively heavy road and moutain bike use, horseback riding, etc., with snowmobiling a popular sport in the winter. The campground at issue is probably 5 miles around the mountain Sundance Ski Resort, which is a recreational center throughout the summer. I don't want to overstate the case, here–it is a gorgeous bit of national forest. But it's very hard to ever be more than a mile or two from a graded or paved road.

Until the past few years, bears were not in the area and this attack is what created the public awareness that bears were actually there and were a risk. I didn't live in the area at the time, but my sense is that general public was surprised that a bear was even found in such a highly used area, given the history of the region (no bears). I certainly was. This particular campsite is the "plum" site–at the end of the road in a gorgeous alpine aspen forest, with great access the mountain behind, starting points for a popular hike to the summit, etc. It has a single access road. The forest service is there all the time to manage the area.

As I see it, this is case where the public was not widely aware of a bear risk, except perhaps as a very remote possibility, but where the forest service was acutely aware of a specific, immediate risk with an easy method for warning campers (the single access road).

I'm not arguing the award was appropriate, but I also don't think this is a case of a few idiots roasting a slab of back bacon in the Slough Creek campground in Yellowstone in October.

So I should rethink my bacon cooking trip to Yellowstone this October then?

It seems that the discussion has really hit both sides and quickly grabbed a hold of a more rounded perspective. I really agree the award is out of hand, and that it is also very easy to imagine it being much higher, given a child's life was the center of the law suit.

As mentioned several times, it would have been very easy to post a sign. I'm actually incredibly shocked that no one put up a sign. Any sign, anywhere. Can you name the last time anyone mopped a fast food joint without putting up a sign? For almost a decade, I can remember park websites being updated with warnings about sightings of new bears near campgrounds. All it takes is printing up a temporary piece of paper and it can go a long way for liability. The lack of predictability of a wild bear and the lack of any fatal bear attacks in the state seriously don't do anything about the fact that in the U.S. you always put up a ****ed warning sign about everything.

And, I think it's also worth noting, the lawsuit is about whether or not the ranger should have warned the family, and if he did know about the attack, he should have. Even if he were directing a good friend and long time bear hunter, he should have mentioned it. It's a bear. It's big. It's got fangs. (Sorry, love the movie.)

With that said, an agency such as the Forest Service can be liable for damages. Parents, as individuals, can be arrested for things.. you know.. like child endangerment. And going camping without knowing risks, and not knowing how to handle those risks…
Don't want to be too harsh about the parents, as the situation is terrible, but if a judge names parents as being a responsible party for the death of a child, there's a bigger issue at hand than just money.

The forest service shouldn't be held liable for wild animal attacks any more then lightning or any other natural dangers. Sure there was an issue with a problem bear, but any bear when given access to food, such as in this case, could become a problem. This attack could have happened regardless of anything the forest service did, or didn't do.

This area has always had bears, just because some don't perceive a danger, doesn't mean it isn't there. There is plenty of signs warning of bear activity all over in the area. The family was not, I repeat not, camping in a designated site. The spot they were camping in was over a mile and a half up a rough dirt road in an at large camping area. How do you close a site down where people can camp wherever they please? Even if they closed the entire road off, bears have a range that far exceeds the area that this single road covers. I guess they could shut down entire forests every time a bear raided irresponsible campers sites.

This lawsuit is about one thing only, money! And I would only believe otherwise, if the family were to use the money awarded to them to help prevent bear problems.

"It's got fangs."

A black bear has canine teeth. A venomous rattlesnake has fangs.

–B.G.–

>> This attack could have happened regardless of anything the forest service did, or didn't do.

But that's not what the court was tasked to decide on and that was made very clear in the opening paragraphs of the court decision. A lawsuit and the ensuing hearing isn't an at-large debate about personal responsibility. It is simply about the merits of this particular case, which was whether an employee of the Forest Service failed to perform her job, and whether her failure directly resulted in the death of this particular child.

All this rhetoric about shutting down national forests is irrelevent because this case was about a very specific campsite which, although it may have been labeled a "backcountry" site, was a well-known established site which, by all accounts, would have been easy to close off or post signs for. And it was established that the family talked to the campground host of the established campground prior to setting up camp and could easily have been verbally warned even if signs hadn't been posted.

In anycase, regardless of what you may think you know, the bottom line is that the court determined that this particular attack would not have happened had the family been warned of the attack that had occurred earlier that day.

The decision also clearly explains how the 1.9 million dollar amount was derived. And, frankly, as a parent of a 12 year-old, I'm more than positive that this family would have their son back over 2 million dollars in a heartbeat.

Honestly, I would recommend reading the court decision. It clearly and concisely summarizes the evidence considered and the criteria used in their decision. It even discusses what *wasn't* relevent.

>>>In anycase, regardless of what you may think you know, the bottom line is that the court determined that this particular attack would not have happened had the family been warned of the attack that had occurred earlier that day.

I am not basing what I know on personal beliefs, I am basing them on facts. I live just outside of the canyon this happened in, and have for over 30 years. I know many people closely involved in this incident.

Fact – The site is not in a campground , nor is it a back country site. It is a spot off to the side of the road, with some logs, and a makeshift stone fire ring. pretty much your run of the mill foothill party site of witch there are hundreds of in the area.

Fact – Just because the forest service could have warned the family does not mean they would have heeded the warning. They say they would have, but they failed to follow the rules of camping in bear country, proving that a warning alone may not have changed the outcome.

Fact – It is not the forest services job to warn about possible dangers, their job is to regulate usage of public lands. Not defend you from the wild in wilderness.

But unfortunately the court decided that for some reason the forest services failure to warn of dangers, even though the family ignored other warnings, was more a factor in the incident then Mr. Francom, whose improper storage of food the night before helped to habituate this bear into associating food with the area, or the family of the boy, whose improper food storage most likely led to the bears return.

And as a father myself, I fully understand that it is most likely the family would rather have their son back then the 2 million. But as a father, I also understand that I would have a hard time living with the fact that my poor decisions led to the death of my child.

I love how it's about personal responsibility, until someone brings the tools that can actually make you personally responsibility for your own safety. There, that should get things going.

>> Fact – It is not the forest services job to warn about possible dangers, their job is to regulate usage of public lands. Not defend you from the wild in wilderness.

I believe you're wrong here and this is, from my understanding, the crux of the case. I think I remember reading that an earlier suit was dismissed by the court because it didn't specifically point out the burden of responsibility on the part of the forest service. The forest service regulations do specify a procedure to be followed by their employees in these types of situations which would certainly make it their "job". The employee in question was dismissed from her job for failing to perform the prescribed procedure.

I wouldn't assume that the parents don't feel guilty or accept their share of the blame.

And, for what it's worth, I don't disagree that perhaps it shouldn't be the forest service's job to warn and "protect" us from wildlife. But, based on what I read in the decision, I think this court made the right determination given the evidence that was presented.

…."accidents like this usually take out the idiots which really helps improve our gene pool" sentiment…..

Although I do agree with this statement, like others have mentioned several times…

” it would have been very easy to post a sign. I'm actually incredibly shocked that no one put up a sign. Any sign, anywhere. Can you name the last time anyone mopped a fast food joint without putting up a sign?”

The statement: “We live in a litigious society where blame is usually placed not on one’s self” is too true. The simple solution is to put Wildlife Warning signs at all recreation spots. I know this would be costly and, unfortunately, would over time become too commonplace for some people to take seriously.

In this case, it may be appropriate to place blame. I just hope a lesson is learned and long term, appropriate action is taken.

Now the next problem: what is appropriate action?

My feeling has always been that, first, we don't stress and enforce the "don't feed the wildlife" rule enough. We take our toddlers to the local park to feed the ducks; we actually BUY packets of food to feed the seals/sealions/rays at Seaworld… and it just goes from there. We were in Yosemite last summer and I was the b*tch who kept telling other visitors' kids NOT to feed the deer. I was just at Lake Mead kayaking and were adopted by a pair of Mallards who followed me around for two days; they obviously knew that bright orange kayaks meant food.

Everytime we go up north (Michigan), we're warned about black bear activity in the area. Yeah, we go through the motions of securing our food but, in the front country campgrounds, it's pretty sloppy. The rangers warn that people violating food storage rules will be fined but I've never actually seen that happen. I'm sure we've been in violation at times. It's not like I frisk the kids for contraband candy bars before they get into their tent. After all, it's just black bears and not grizzlies, right…? (Yes, being facetious.)

As sad as it is, I think this case and the ensuing lawsuit has done a lot to make people aware that these things *can* happen. I see it following a similar pattern as the "school bullying" issue. Years ago, the focus was on the victim, who were seen as being 'whimps' that needed a backbone (remember the movie 'Back to the Future'?) But after some highly publicized cases of tragic suicides, the focus is more on simply making bullying unacceptible; you bully someone, you're gone, period. I do agree that it would be a shame if the focus ends up being on what the forest service did or didn't do. I think the effort would be better spent punishing people who're violating food practices. Unfortunately, sometimes it requires significant pain before people bother to do the right thing.

I read virtually every jury verdict in my state and can tell you that 99.9% do not come to this kind of result. But no one outside the legal system notices them. One unusual result out of thousands does not make a broken system. Do you stop sleeping in the backcountry because of a story of one person being killed by lightning? Of course not. Likewise its not fair to label our court system as being full of frivolous lawsuits because of one bad result.

I also wonder why no one ever complains about the lawsuits where someone is injured or killed by someone's fault and there is a verdict for the defense. The Chamber of Commerce and insurance industry never mention these.

Anyone involved in the system will tell you frivolous lawsuits are not a problem. Surveys of sitting and retired judges confirm that frivolous lawsuits are very rare. Its a political talking point, not reality. There is just too big of a financial disincentive for plaintiff lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits. Truth is, there are just way more gray areas than most people like to admit. Lawsuits are about real life and real life is mostly gray areas.

It interesting you named bullies and bears in this thread.
It is just proof that their is always someone or something bigger than you that will take it away from you in are human life.

The animal world also has bullies also it called the food chain in order to survive.

Then we are bullies to animals encroaching on their natural environment by building towns,campgrounds and their natural instinct is to go after what ever is the easiest food source to get that day to survive in their human modified environment.

So no mater what we do Bullying will always be around it old as the the world in order to survive .
I am speaking from experience bullies thought I was easy prey and they found out the hard way they made a mistake that I was really a badger in sheep clothes.
Terry

SP – Fact – It is not the forest services job to warn about possible dangers, their job is to regulate usage of public lands. Not defend you from the wild in wilderness.

>>>I believe you're wrong here and this is, from my understanding, the crux of the case. I think I remember reading that an earlier suit was dismissed by the court because it didn't specifically point out the burden of responsibility on the part of the forest service. The forest service regulations do specify a procedure to be followed by their employees in these types of situations which would certainly make it their "job". The employee in question was dismissed from her job for failing to perform the prescribed procedure.

SP – Having procedures while performing a service does not equal responsibility.

My local fire department has a service where they inspect child car seats. Performing that service does not make them responsible for the safety of my child in an accident.

If the forest service is responsible to notify all land users of known dangers, where does it end?

If they get a storm warning for an area and fail to notify all users of the area, do they become liable?

If there is a risk of avalanche and they fail to post signs at the possible avalanche sites, do they become liable?

Let's say I am driving down a more dangerous section of mountain road, there are road signs on many curves that warn me of the danger, but on one of the curves there is no signage and I drive of the road, is the forest service liable?

The DWR was actively looking for this bear in the days before the attack, the idea that the forest service had no knowledge of the bear before the incident with Mr. Francom is absurd. The forest service definitely knew about the bear beforehand, but taking on procedure of trying to actively warn of dangers such as this would set precedent for their responsibility. It's a no win situation.

And I know if I was trying to forget a painful incident in my life, years of litigation is not the route that I would take to achieve that goal.

Tax cuts that reduce our parks to skeleton crews will have consequences. Those procedures were probably written years ago, when they had a budget and staff.

Someone commented how this ruling is not the norm. I believe there is good reasoning behind this.

I am not positive as I do not live in the area but I would guess that whether or not bears frequent the location in question, there must be some kind of bear warnings posted. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Whether they be on the website or in literature given at the ranger station, they most likely are there. If you are inexperienced in camping in the woods and the dangers of the area, it is your responsibility to research the risk involved before you head straight to your campsite.

Because a site is not designated "backcountry", does not make the site immune to bear traffic. The wild is often two steps from the highway. Once you leave the safety of your car and step into the wilderness there are risks.

If the area had been blocked off and secured so no bears could present a problem to campers, was advertised as such, and a bear attack still occured – then I could find fault in the park. This is not the case.

This is quite an interesting post. I value all sides of the arguement and all opinions equally.

>>>I am not positive as I do not live in the area but I would guess that whether or not bears frequent the location in question, there must be some kind of bear warnings posted. Does anyone know if this is the case?

There is bear activity warnings at all trail head boards and improved campgrounds. Along with ranger stations, and the fee station to enter the canyon.

Really all of Utah is black bear country, but like mountain lions people don't often see them, so out of site out of mind.

""It's got fangs."

A black bear has canine teeth. A venomous rattlesnake has fangs."

Rattlesnakes and vicious rabbits…

@Scott — I'm curious, did you read the court decision? I'm guessing not, based on the statements you're making. Nobody is talking about storms or avalanches or anything else other than this particular bear and this particular campsite. By their own regulations, the officer was supposed to report the earlier incident (she was called at home.) Her supervisor testified that, had she informed the FS as required, they would have taken steps to warn and/or close the site. She didn't and, as a result, the family camped there and their child was killed. And your statement about DWR and the forest service's knowledge about the bear contradicts the findings.

But, hey, maybe you know better. In which case, you should probably offer to be a witness for the appeal.

>>>@Scott — I'm curious, did you read the court decision? I'm guessing not, based on the statements you're making. Nobody is talking about storms or avalanches or anything else other than this particular bear and this particular campsite. By their own regulations, the officer was supposed to report the earlier incident (she was called at home.) Her supervisor testified that, had she informed the FS as required, they would have taken steps to warn and/or close the site. She didn't and, as a result, the family camped there and their child was killed. And your statement about DWR and the forest service's knowledge about the bear contradicts the findings.

But, hey, maybe you know better. In which case, you should probably offer to be a witness for the appeal.

SP – Do you really believe that the DWR hunting for a problem bear in the days before this incident, really went unnoticed by the forest service? Of course they new about it before hand.

The boys parents failed to follow safe procedure while camping in bear country. They are responsible for the death of their child.