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.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1280500
    James holden
    BPL Member

    @bearbreeder-2

    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.

    #1789935
    Steven Hanlon
    BPL Member

    @asciibaron

    Locale: Mid Atlantic

    i 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 :(

    #1789936
    BlackHatGuy
    Spectator

    @sleeping

    Locale: The Cascades

    "like that will happen :("

    Things like that in such situations happen more often than you might think.

    #1789954
    Mike M
    BPL Member

    @mtwarden

    Locale: Montana

    no 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

    #1789962
    Dave Marcus
    BPL Member

    @djrez4

    Locale: Rocky Mountains

    MIke – 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.

    #1790021
    Jesse Glover
    Member

    @hellbillylarry

    Locale: southern appalachians

    So 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?

    #1790052
    Hikin’ Jim
    BPL Member

    @hikin_jim

    Locale: Orange County, CA, USA

    I think they wanted to be warned that there had been an attack a few hours before, not that there were bears in Utah.

    HJ

    #1790439
    Steven Hanlon
    BPL Member

    @asciibaron

    Locale: Mid Atlantic

    "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.

    #1790447
    BlackHatGuy
    Spectator

    @sleeping

    Locale: The Cascades

    "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."

    #1790487
    David Olsen
    Spectator

    @oware

    Locale: Steptoe Butte

    Just 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.

    #1790519
    Troy Pratten
    BPL Member

    @gogators

    Locale: The Middle of Big 12-3+1 Country

    When 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."

    #1790555
    Ben C
    BPL Member

    @alexdrewreed

    Locale: Kentucky

    Personal 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.

    #1790596
    Luke Schmidt
    BPL Member

    @cameron

    Locale: Alaska

    I'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.

    #1790600
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    "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.–

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • 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!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...