Family awarded $1.9 million in bear attack lawsuit

11:11 a.m. on May 4, 2011 (EDT)
5 reviewer rep
40 forum posts

Link

SALT LAKE CITY -- A judge ruled Tuesday that the federal government was largely responsible for a 2007 bear attack that resulted in the death of an 11-year-old boy and awarded his family nearly $2 million in damages.

Attorney Tyler Young said that the judge determined that the federal government was 65 percent responsible for the death of Samuel Ives, and consequently awarded Ives’s parents — Kevan Francis and Rebecca Ives — $1.95 million. Judge Dale Kimball also determined that the state government was 25 percent responsible, and the boy’s family was 10 percent responsible. Young said the ruling had no bearing on a separate lawsuit against the state government.

There's more, read the link.  I wonder how they calculate the percentage of responsibility?

1:26 p.m. on May 4, 2011 (EDT)
245 reviewer rep
1,469 forum posts

Be warned when you drive to the park you could have a car accident and die.

1:52 p.m. on May 4, 2011 (EDT)
TRAILSPACE STAFF
588 reviewer rep
3,022 forum posts

I remember when that happened. It's sad all around for the boy who died and his family.

The ruling is interesting though.

3:56 p.m. on May 4, 2011 (EDT)
122 reviewer rep
69 forum posts

It is always tragic when someone is seriously injured or dies. It is also a sad and sorrowful time for the child's family and those close to them.

I would disagree with the calculation of responsibility of all involved, but the Judge ruled and it is what it is for the moment. Unfortunately, in this instance I think all suffered a loss.

5:57 p.m. on May 4, 2011 (EDT)
14 reviewer rep
318 forum posts

I just don't get it. Bears eat, sleep and eat. That is what they do. How does the government become liable for a bears actions?

10:00 p.m. on May 4, 2011 (EDT)
63 reviewer rep
190 forum posts

Pathetic...  How on Earth is the bear going to come up with that kind of cheddar?  Robbing backpackers?

10:06 p.m. on May 4, 2011 (EDT)
122 reviewer rep
69 forum posts

They can rob 'em when they are busy with Charmin'. lol.

8:47 a.m. on May 5, 2011 (EDT)
141 reviewer rep
218 forum posts

How is the family only 10% liable? Did the Forest Service force them to go camping at gun point? Did the FS tell them that they may get bite by mosquittoes? This is insane.

12:19 p.m. on May 5, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
24 forum posts

I would hope if I was camping somewhere and the Park Ranger was aware there was an above normal aggresive/dangerous bear in the area, it would be posted or each individual camper be warned by him/her. This Ranger did not act according to protocall and hence the Govt. liability.  The Judge did not think the generic bear caution signs were enough warning when it was reported that a bear had attacked another camper earlier in the day and the Ranger had been notified.  You can argue about the percentages, but the Govt. (employer of the Ranger) bears some responsibility.

3:30 p.m. on May 5, 2011 (EDT)
0 reviewer rep
1,238 forum posts

Seems as though the Park Service could come-up with a 'Heightened Alert' system, when a bear (or bears) are actively being noticed where they normally would not be, or when attacks or near-attacks occurred.

Like "Hurricane Warning Flags" the Coast Guard raises here along the East Coast.   And "Shark Warnings" along the beaches where I surf.

Yogi Robt

6:36 a.m. on May 6, 2011 (EDT)
314 reviewer rep
1,124 forum posts

The parents allowed this little boy to take food into the tent.

Its nice to know that if I get attacked while backpacking I have a big life Ins policy.

1:58 p.m. on May 7, 2011 (EDT)
284 reviewer rep
140 forum posts

I would like to know how the park treats campers, were there bear lockers?  If so why were they not told to use them, or was it open area were the family was located that would fall on the family to properly store food.  I would like to know if there was a problem with bear attacks, this would make me change plans or if camping I would relocate to safer area.  The boy had a can soda which to means they must of been in a control area?  I don't think anyone would carry can soda's very far on a camping trip, the car or truck must have been near.  I'm very sad for the boy and family, but all of us must help others if you know of a problem in the area.  Warning signs will help, but if you know there has been a attack, everybody needs to be told.  The bottom line is the family should not have been camping with attacking bear in the area. 

4:40 p.m. on May 7, 2011 (EDT)
122 reviewer rep
69 forum posts

The family made a decision on where to camp, what to bring, how long they were going to stay, what information to get prior to and during the trip, etc, etc. etc.

August 27, 2014
Quick Reply

Please sign in to reply

 
More Topics
This forum: Older: Backcountry activities as a fitness plan Newer: The Rock Face
All forums: Older: Astronomical gear prices Newer: FS: cool, inexpensive vintage pack 3500c