11 Year Old Boy Killed by Bear

[asdf]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=15400295



SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge has ruled the U.S. Forest Service was negligent and has awarded $1.9 million to the family of a boy killed by a black bear in American Fork Canyon nearly four years ago.
The trial was held in February, by a judge and not a jury. The judge took several weeks before issuing a verdict.
That decision was handed down Tuesday afternoon, and Judge Dale Kimball found the U.S. Government, the Forest Service in particular, is liable for the death of Sam Ives.
Sam was camping with his mother, brother and stepfather in American Fork Canyon on the night of June 17, 2007. In the middle of the night, a black bear ripped through the boy's tent and dragged him away. His body was found a couple of hours later.
A fatal attack by a black bear was unheard of in Utah before this tragic incident. But as it turned out, a problem bear had been in the same area where the family was camping earlier in the day.
The family's attorney argued the Forest Service could have and should have done more to warn campers of a problem bear in the area.
The ruling handed down Tuesday says the Forest Service "breached its duties" by not warning the public and found the agency to be 65 percent at fault. The judge assigned 25% percent of the blame to the Division of Wildlife Resources for failing to communicate with the Forest Service, and 10 percent of the fault to the boy's family for leaving food out in bear country.
The U.S. Attorney's Office, which defended the Forest Service in the lawsuit, says attorneys will review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal.
Again, a federal judge has ruled in favor of the family of Sam Ives, awarding them 1.9 million dollars in damages.
More information will be posted as it becomes available.

[accadacca]

Wow!

How much does the Bears family get?

[JP]

Unbelievable. You can sue nature and win.

[ratagonia]

Wow!

How much does the Bears family get?

Scalia denied the Bear's family standing. They were not incorporated.

[asdf]

Unbelievable. You can sue nature and win.

that never was the argument.

[JP]

Neither was harming your family

Boy, our National Parks now liable for injuries do to wildlife within, wonder if there will be an overreaction by the parks? Maybe do away with camping?

[asdf]

**** you JP

[Deadeye008]

That's pretty rediculous. I'm thinking this just opened a flood gate...

[JP]

**** you JP

Awe, thanks Summit Do I hit a nerve Too bad How are you and your family doing? Dog?

That's pretty rediculous. I'm thinking this just opened a flood gate...

Yep, that's how I look at it as well. When does the responsibility fall upon the camper? This is the era of the Net, wouldn't it be a smart idea to check up on the place you want to head to and see what's been going on in that area? Who is responsible when a canyoneer is swept away and drowns? Can that family sue because it wasn't made known that, that specific day had a change in inherent risks? The reason for this, throw a child into the mix. I'm sure if it was adults, we wouldn't be reading this. But I agree, I see the floodgates opening.

[uintahiker]

"The court would be abdicating its responsibility if it failed to allocate any fault whatsoever to Sam and his parents because of the food that was found in the family tent." -Court judgment

I read this that if the candy bar wasn't in the tent the Forest Service would be liable for $3.8 million. Ridiculous.

[uintahiker]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=15400295


The ruling handed down Tuesday says the Forest Service "breached its duties" by not warning the public and found the agency to be 65 percent at fault. The judge assigned 25% percent of the blame to the Division of Wildlife Resources for failing to communicate with the Forest Service, and 10 percent of the fault to the boy's family for leaving food out in bear country.

The family's only 10% to blame then? Seems a bit small to me.

[JP]

I read this that if the candy bar wasn't in the tent the Forest Service would be liable for $3.8 million. Ridiculous.

I think the entire thing is ridiculous.

But, in this day and age, there is always somebody looking for a payout. And if it's not stopped, it will only continue. Maybe nearby campers can also sue, claiming it could have been us and they too didn't inform us. We are feeling pain and suffering over this. Why not? You may score something.

[Deadeye008]

The family's only 10% to blame then? Seems a bit small to me.

I agree. The first rule of camping in bear country is no food in the tent.

[canyonphile]

I think the entire thing is ridiculous.

But, in this day and age, there is always somebody looking for a payout. And if it's not stopped, it will only continue. Maybe nearby campers can also sue, claiming it could have been us and they too didn't inform us. We are feeling pain and suffering over this. Why not? You may score something.

Agreed. This is not a "win" for anyone (well, except for the plaintiff attorney - I'm sure he made out like a bandit here), and the FS, outdoor enthusiasts and taxpayers are the big losers. Family doesn't get their kid back, and now bears will be even more feared and reviled. Any bear sighting anywhere near a campground in that jurisdiction, and the FS will shut it down, and no one will be allowed anywhere near the area until: 1) the bear has been killed or relocated; 2) it's been a few months without nary a sign of the bear. Nice precedent to set.

The outcome of this lawsuit shows that personal responsibility and the inherent risk of being outdoors has been successfully trumped by the new idea that your personal safety and well-being are clearly now SOMEONE ELSE's RESPONSIBILITY. A few signs and common sense in bear country aren't enough.

Where does it end, I wonder?

[JP]

The outcome of this lawsuit shows that personal responsibility and the inherent risk of being outdoors has been successfully trumped by the new idea that your personal safety and well-being are clearly now SOMEONE ELSE's RESPONSIBILITY. A few signs and common sense in bear country aren't enough.

Where does it end, I wonder?

Agreed two fold

It will never end since the system loves to entertain just about any lawsuit. There will be a hungry lawyer that will always seem dollar signs, some quick talk and whalla, plaintiff's reeled right in to visions of dollars dancing in their heads.

**** you JP

Thanks for that PM there tough guy Don't feel like answering the question

[ratagonia]

Agreed. This is not a "win" for anyone (well, except for the plaintiff attorney - I'm sure he made out like a bandit here), and the FS, outdoor enthusiasts and taxpayers are the big losers. Family doesn't get their kid back, and now bears will be even more feared and reviled. Any bear sighting anywhere near a campground in that jurisdiction, and the FS will shut it down, and no one will be allowed anywhere near the area until: 1) the bear has been killed or relocated; 2) it's been a few months without nary a sign of the bear. Nice precedent to set.

The outcome of this lawsuit shows that personal responsibility and the inherent risk of being outdoors has been successfully trumped by the new idea that your personal safety and well-being are clearly now SOMEONE ELSE's RESPONSIBILITY. A few signs and common sense in bear country aren't enough.

Where does it end, I wonder?

Let us hope it gets overturned on appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_A._Kimball

Tom

[JP]

Let us hope it gets overturned on appeal.

Do you actually think it will? Unfortunately, the only thing I can see is a reduction in the amount. Any loss of a child is tragic to say the least.

[ratagonia]

Do you actually think it will? Unfortunately, the only thing I can see is a reduction in the amount. Any loss of a child is tragic to say the least.

Which surprises me they did not go for a jury trial... usually with a kid killed you can get a better result before a jury.

Don't know. I have HOPE for a CHANGE. Seems like the facts of the case put little liability on the FS and WS. But, Judge Kimball disagreed.

I find an interesting dichotomy here in Utah: anti-Federal, conservative, LDS and family-centric. On the one hand, a disdain for the feds. On the second hand, a belief that when a child dies, fault must be found with an authority. On the third hand, lip service at least to personal responsibility. So while Kimball is conservative (which would tend toward personal responsibility) he is also LDS and family-centric (so it must have been the fault of an authority). Kids getting swept over the Emerald Pools fall in Zion - musta been the Park Service's fault??? The court found otherwise, and I think it should here, too.

It ain't over till it's over.

Tom

[JP]

Unless the lawyer felt the jury would see things like we do. With the jurors arguing amongst themselves, the value of the claim would drop until all came on an agreement, no? Or the jury wouldn't be 100% in finding the FS at fault. Jury may have viewed it as it was, a tragic accident. Maybe in this case the lawyer felt it was best to stick with the Judge.

[oldno7]

Bill, was this family related to you?

Fair question I think considering your defense.