Sad about the kid but is the government really responsible for making the woods safe for you?

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - A Utah federal judge on Tuesday awarded nearly $2 million to the family of an 11-year-old boy killed by a bear at a campsite in 2007.

The family of Samuel Ives sued the U.S. Forest Service for failing to close the American Fork Canyon campsite in the mountains about 30 miles south of Salt Lake City after the bear attacked another camper.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball said the forest service had a "duty" to warn the Ives family of the earlier attack either verbally, by posting signs on a gate leading in the area or by roping off the specific campsite.

The Pleasant Grove boy died on June 17, 2007 - Father's Day - after a bear ripped through his tent and dragged him away. Ives' mauled body was found about 400 yards from the campsite.

The bear had caused problems in the same area 12 hours earlier, ripping through another tent and rummaging through coolers. Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources had dubbed it a "level 3" nuisance bear - considered the most dangerous - and crews set out to find it and kill it. The bear was only successfully trapped and killed after Ives' death.

Kimball said it was "foreseeable" that the bear would return to a campsite where it had earlier attacked campers and found food. The judge also said an off-duty forest service employee was negligent in failing to contact others in the agency that could have determined whether the campsite should be closed.

A forest service employee who discussed campground fees with the family did not tell them about the first attack.

In a February trial, however, attorneys for the government argued that no warnings were necessary because Utah had not previously seen a fatal attack by a black bear.

In an email to The Associated Press Tuesday, Utah's U.S. attorney's office spokeswoman Melodie Rydalch said the government is reviewing the ruling in consultation with the Department of Justice and would weigh its options.

Kimball said a "fair award" to the Ives' family could be as much as $3 million, an amount awarded to other families in wrongful death lawsuits. But the judge only assigned 65 percent of the fault for the attack to the forest service and ordered a judgment of $1.95 million.

The judge said Utah's DWR should shoulder some responsibility for failing to contact the forest service about its search for the bear. Kimball also said Ives' family - and the boy himself - was at fault because they failed to remove food wrappers and trash from their tent.

Sharon Ives, the boy's grandmother, said the family is pleased with the judge's ruling but said their main purpose in bringing the lawsuit was to force state and federal agencies to change their policies related to bear attacks and sightings.

"We just wanted to make a difference and we feel like we did," Sharon Ives said. "It won't bring Sam back, but at least maybe there is something good that can come from it. If we save one person's life, it's worth the effort."

Ives' family has also filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the DWR in state court.

It is not the government's responsibility to make the woods safe and the only long term effect will be less access due to potential liability.



Like you said, it is sad that anyone got hurt but unfortunately bad things happen.



If you are more likely to be struck by lightning, Should the Forest Service be responsible then also?

I am torn here. I agree with the judge that a simple sign warning of the previous attack was in order. I have seen similar signs at other parks.

Folks do have a responsibility to be careful in bear county, but not all campers are knowledgeable outdoors people.

It appears that the attack occurred in a designated camping area as the article states that the victim's family had a discussion about fees with an employee. Since they were in a designated camping area it would seem to me that they should have been notified at a minimum about the presence of bears in the area and reminded about bear safety.

If the family had been out in the back country somewhere and this attack occurred then the family would be on their own.

Yes Dave BUT, is it our responsibility to teach people or their responsibility to go and get the knowledge themselves.

While I'm not a big fan of the Forest Circus I don't think this is a good ruling. There used to be a thing called personal responsibility but it seems the courts have nullified that notion.

I partially agree with all the above comments. But I think that when there is a known danger, it's not too much to put up a sign about that danger.

If you go to Yellowstone or other National parks where there are Grizzly bears you get lots of notice about the issue. Then if you get killed its your own damn fault.

The location isn't the issue, ie, the woods. The issue was there had been 1 attack in the area already and the USFS didn't alert campers to the possible danger of attack #2. Notice family #1 didn't sue due USFS.

I noticed that USFS was able to have someone there to collect the user fees so it wouldn't be too much to expect someone to warn campers about bears in the area.

Still B.S. IMO. Things happen in the woods. What next, surfers winning millions because they did not know sharks were in the water and were not warned.

About time people in this country start taking responsiblity for their actions and quit looking for someone else to blame. God knows it could not have been them leaving food around and not protecting themselves. Had to be the forest service for not telling them bears live in the woods and like campsites. Turn on a TV and watch some discovery channel.

According to that logic if you were the 2nd victim of a hood shooting and the city failed to install a "Danger you are now entering a Gang & Pimp infested area, proceed at your own risk" sign, how is that different?

So should the national Park service take down all those bear warning signs in Yellowstone?

This makes me think of the time I was camping in a remote FS campsite on the Sun River in Montana. We had a small cloth tent. At bedtime I went to the restroom where I read a sign there had been a bear attack in that campsite recently. Whne I got back to the tent the exwife told me she was on the rag. We slept in the car that night.

With hindsite, I should have slept in the car and left her in the tent.

People need to realize that when they sue the Government they are suing all of us.

Signs tend to negate the whole forest/wilderness experience but how far does it go now? Do we need a sign if someone was bit by a snake last week? What about when fluffy ends up eaten by who knows what? Poison oak? Sun burn? What of someone got rabies from a bat last year?

Maybe as they pay their fee they need to "sign" a long waiver:

There may be wild animals that can harm or even kill. There are trees that may fall. Bad weather can lead to injury. Exposure to the elements can have adverse effects. Off or on trail can be hazardous to ones health.....

Somehow I see a diffrence between - there are bears in the woods and on very rare occassions they attack humans - and - there is a bear here, now, that is attacking humans. Might be just me . . .

I doubt those folks set their camp up whilst a bear was attacking humans "now"......

The first attack was within 12 hours of these folks setting up camp. Also, after Googling the camp area, this ain't the back woods. This is a heavily used area with lots of camp grounds and it appears to be pretty near a more suburban area.

http://www.suscon.org/pir/AbandonedMines/pdfs/UintaNF_AmericanForkCanyon_MineralBasin_map.pdf

When you have lots of car camping going on, you are not going to get the back woods savvy and informing of a bear attack would be the common sense thing to do.

Ok I capitulate...it's totally the forest circus' responsibility to make sure urbanites are safe EVERY-PH.VCKING-WHERE they go.

...even when they take the Toyota Pious out car camping.

So two million makes sense to you?


The money won't undo the tragedy or "hopefully save one person's life."



This is why handguns have warning labels stamped on the side of the barrel- "READ YOUR OWNERS MANUAL"

Poor Risk Management, IMHO, on the part of the Forrest Service. If it is predictable it is preventable. Given the bear's previous behavior and the Forrest Service was concerned enough to start a hunt for the bear why not warn others to help prevent what did happen. At the very least it is the common sense thing to do.

Looks like the Judge assigned a fair portion of the blame to the family.

So, I will be the first to say, on its face, the ruling seems reasonable to me.

The forest circus is polulated by liberal do gooders and idiot democraps. Perhaps those government employees didn't want poor Yogi to fall upon an unfortunate demise and as such decided that posting signs would work against their goals.

Modern day John Muirs in a post modern world...