Topic
Judge Throws Out Lawsuit in Utah Bear Attack Suit
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › General Forums › General Lightweight Backpacking Discussion › Judge Throws Out Lawsuit in Utah Bear Attack Suit
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Oct 12, 2011 at 10:53 am #1280500
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2011/10/judge-throws-out-lawsuit-in-utah-bear-attack-suit/
Bears are elements of the natural world and the state of Utah cannot be expected to protect people from them, a district judge has ruled, throwing out a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of a boy who was killed by a bear while camping.
Judge David Mortensen said, “This court…concludes that a bear is a natural condition on the land and thus even assuming the state has duty, the state is immunized from suit.” He concurred with the state, which had argued that “there is no specific duty owed to the plaintiffs, and further, even if there were a duty, the state is immunized from suit under the ‘natural condition’ exception in the Governmental Immunity Act.”
On Father’s Day 2007, 11-year-old Samuel Ives was camping with family in Utah’s American Fork Canyon. In the middle of the night, he was dragged from his tent by a black bear. The same bear had raided the same campsite just 12 hours earlier, and Ives’s parents argued that the state Division of Wildlife Resources and Forest Service should have warned campers of the threat.
They sued both agencies, and in May, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball found the Forest Service negligent for not alerting campers and awarded $1.95 million to the family. He assessed $3 million in damages and concluded that the Forest Service was 65 percent responsible.
This is the second time a Utah judge has dismissed the suit against the state agency: It was thrown out in 2009, the family appealed, the state Supreme Court overturned the judgment, and it ended up back in court, leading to the current ruling.
Oct 13, 2011 at 6:24 am #1789935i can see both sides and would be devastated if it was my son. i hope they use the money from the FS suit to setup an education campaign to educate campers in bear country.
like that will happen :(
Oct 13, 2011 at 6:29 am #1789936"like that will happen :("
Things like that in such situations happen more often than you might think.
Oct 13, 2011 at 7:13 am #1789954no mixed feelings for me, it's a tragic incident to be sure, but the expectation that a state (or federal) agency will somehow miraculously intervene every time a wild animal goes through a wild area seems to be stretching things a bit
Oct 13, 2011 at 7:52 am #1789962MIke – I completely agree. There's another theory in the law called "assuming the risk." You go into the woods knowing you may encounter a bear. It's part of the experience, for good or bad. When it goes bad, tragic as it may be, you can't just go around suing. (That's what insurance is for!) I'm 100% with the Court on this one.
Oct 13, 2011 at 10:04 am #1790021So these parents need to be warned that there's bears in Utah? I knw that and I've never set foot in the state. Can I sue the state if I trip over a root and break my leg they have never warned me about trees. What if I slip on a rock crossing a river? Never seen a wet floor sign I'm the backcountry.
What ever happened to personal responsibility?
Oct 13, 2011 at 11:00 am #1790052I think they wanted to be warned that there had been an attack a few hours before, not that there were bears in Utah.
HJ
Oct 14, 2011 at 8:01 am #1790439"I think they wanted to be warned that there had been an attack a few hours before, not that there were bears in Utah."
being able to make an informed decision in the wilderness is an important thing. i would not choose to make camp where a recent bear incident occurred and would like to know, esp. if the Forest Service was aware of it.
not sure what going after Utah is about since they were not found responsible in the other case. i guess spreading the responsibility around.
Oct 14, 2011 at 8:22 am #1790447"not sure what going after Utah is about since they were not found responsible in the other case."
Not sure where you got that from.
"Assessing the damages at $3 million, he found the Forest Service was 65 percent at fault, thus liable for $1.95 million. He found the state Division of Wildlife Resources was 25 percent to blame for failing to adequately communicate with the Forest Service.
He also found the family shared some blame for leaving traces of food — a granola bar wrapper and a Coke Zero can — in the tent in bear country."
Oct 14, 2011 at 10:13 am #1790487Just after the lawsuit was decided against the USFS, another bear attack happened to
a jogger in a campground in NE WA.Within a few hours of the attack, there were warning signs and area closures everywhere around and they had hounds after the bear.
Two bears were killed to make sure they got the right one.
Responsible or not the lawsuit put a fire in the pants of the USFS.
Oct 14, 2011 at 12:08 pm #1790519When I was last in Glacier NP, it was annoying that trails kept shutting down due to bear activity. It would have been far more upsetting, however, if the rangers knew about specific bear activity on the trails and there was no warning. It seems like a very interesting case–certainly not clear cut "why should the state have to warn you that bears exist."
Oct 14, 2011 at 1:44 pm #1790555Personal responsibility goes both ways. The employees with authority over the site have a personal responsibility too. I'm sure how this kid failed in his personal responsibility.
If I am reading that correctly, the court did not find that the state had no duty; it found that the state has immunity. We have immunity in my state too. Immunity means that the state can not be held responsible for its actions regardless of how irresponsible it is or how bad the injury it causes.
Oct 14, 2011 at 2:43 pm #1790596I'd prefer a "Hike at your own risk" notice if there was a bear issue. The problem with making the government responsible is than they feel obligated to make rules for everything and assume we're all dumb.
Oct 14, 2011 at 2:48 pm #1790600"The problem with making the government responsible is than they feel obligated to make rules for everything and assume we're all dumb."
Based on some of the backpackers that I've seen this summer, that assumption might be halfway accurate.
–B.G.–
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.