Is the US Forest Service at fault?

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...

Pretty lame of the people to accept the money, let alone the judge for awarding it. Sign of the times I guess. It's probably not legal for a citizen to shoot a damn bear there, even in self defense... Perfect example of nanny state assuming responsibility which it can not bear :-)

Is the forest service at fault? No way. Perhaps they had a chance to prevent this from happening, but the responsibility should lie directly on the shoulders of those that chose to go camping in the great outdoors. Having said that, I am not sure our court system will support that sentiment, in fact they probably won't.

Our societies continuous slide towards complete abandonment of personal responsibility and removal of the action-consequence relationship is sickening.

If a civil remedy is being pursued under tort law, the argument in the courts will likely revolve around the concept of whether or not the USFS and/or employees had a "duty" to act, act in this case meaning informing or warning folks about the recent bear activity, taking closure action, etc.

The elements needed to prove negligence, if that is the route that the plaintiffs go, are the following; 

1.  a clearly established duty to act
2.  a breach of that duty (either by action or inaction)
3.  causation (linking the action/inaction to damages)
4.  and damages

I agree with Dave in that I think it is good practice for organizations like the USFS to inform and educate whenever possible and appropriate, but I really don't like the precedent that would be (and is being) set throughout our country of allowing individuals to escape personal responsibility and the consequences of their actions. If you choose to set foot into the great outdoors, you shouldn't need to be told that there are a lot of things that can kill you out there. Sadly, there has been a huge erosion of what was once common sense, and we are trying to compensate for that by creating policies, procedures, and organizations to regulate, mitigate, and insulate.

Do I think that the organization involved should have mentioned the fact that there had been recent bear trouble in the area?  Absolutely.  I definitely do not think that they should be held liable for what happened though.

I'd be willing to bet the lawyers will dig something up that points out some public safety component of the USFS directives and mandates and will try to prove a breach of that "duty." Bummer for all involved.

Did I miss the "previous attack" part in the article ? ? What I read is that it tore up a tent and some coolers .. . . .that does not make an "attack" to me. . . . .. .

I feel for the family that lost a loved one, however, it is not like they went to the circus and one of the trained perfomers went berserk. .. . .
They went campin and a bear had the nerve to go all "bear" while they were there. . . . .

Yeah, personal responsability. . . .. where did it go? ? ?

I don't really have an opinion on the money, but, what is a kid's life worth? I would say that one of my kid's lives would be worth 2 million.

Based on the article, the map showing the camp area, and the proximatey to populated areas, I think that the USFS has a responsibility to inform the public in the camp grounds about a previous bear attack and remind people about bear safety.
Not too difficult and quite frankly, that is part of the Park Rangers job, public safety in the forest.

In the context of national parks and national forests, and with regard to "public safety issues," where do you draw the line between what is the agency's responsibility, and what should be personal responsibility?

How far should an agency go to intervene? Is simple signage enough? Verbal conveyance of information pertaining to certain hazards..which ones?

How far can land manager go before they start to negatively effect the visitors experience. Many say they are already far too intrusive. Hiding quietly in the background allowing total freedom to enjoy but being ready and able to spring into action to prevent accident or injury isn't practical or possible.

Don't touch that, it could hurt you. Don't go there you might get injured, etc. etc feels a lot like a restriction of freedom when implemented. If anything the majority of sentiment these days seems to be that land managers should be disengaging and stepping back from management rather than working towards further restriction of the public's right to enjoy their land on their terms.

We can't have it both ways. We can't have total freedom to enjoy and engage, but be spared from the dangers of the environment. So what is appropriate? What level of intervention and regulation do you think society at large could agree on?

I would guess that if you polled society and asked them the question: "If the USFS knew about a prior bear attack in a heavily used camp ground do you think they have an obligation to post a few signs and remind campers they come across in the normal actions of their business day about basic bear safety, should they do this?" The resounding answer would most likely be "yes".

Like Dave said earlier, there are signs all over Yellow Stone pertaining to bears. The judge found that the USFS could of and should have warned folks about a "level 3" bear, one that most likely will attack again, and it did. Seems pretty straight forward.

It's all right here:

"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."

One USFS employee did not contact others in the agency about the campsite and another employee discussed fees but did not warn them about the bear.

Based on the article info, that seems pretty negligent to me.

I was trying to have a conversation that was slightly more broad than this particular case. Yes, I agree that the employees that had a chance to say something should have. I don't necessarily agree that they (ultimately the govt) should be held liable for someones death for not having said or done anything.

Now that there have been two bear attacks at that site, it seems possible that it could happen again right? Should they close it? What happens if they leave it open and someone comes in after hours and the employees don't have a chance to talk to them. What if they miss the signs because they aren't lit at night? What if the campers don't speak or understand english?

One of the points I am trying to make is that once you legally obligate a person or an organization to provide for the safety of others, you open a huge can of worms. My definition of what I want and need to be "safe" is very different than yours. Who gets to draw the line? I guess ultimately the courts do, even if it is after the fact in many cases.

I am obviously playing the devils advocate here and in doing so, I am hoping to underscore the fact that opinions on public safety (especially in the wild) and ideas on which services and provisions are necessary and appropriate vary widely. Probably to the point that they are not and will never be reconcilable.

Personally I try to not have to count on others, especially those that I don't trust with my life, to provide for my personal safety and well being.

I live 75 miles from the multi-million acre Denali National Park. You can probably count the entire park's collection of "beware of bear" signs on one hand. How many would you recommend they post to make the park safe for visitors. One on every tree, or just all of the major trailheads, campgrounds, access roads, landing strips, gravel bars, and pullouts?

I think the Forest Service was negligent in so far as the campers weren't warned of an active bear having been at that campsite. In fact I just can't see why anyone wouldn't tell the campers in the entire area to be extra cautious.....I can see no reason why it wouldn't be at least mentioned. Very baffling.

I do have issue with involving the "off duty" employee in the liability argument, however. I don't know if the Forest Service Employees take a "24/7" oath, but I doubt it.

Terrible loss for sure.

Sign location is very simple: On the fee collection box. Since this is a USFS camp ground and fees are being collected you can bet that there is a fee collection box and everyone is expected to pay upon arrival. See, not that hard.

Seems like a good ruling to me. Reasonable and prudent behavior would have been to warn the family. Imagine if you were camping and a bear ripped apart your tent and dragged out the cooler. Now as you are leaving the campground, you see another family with kids setting up camp. Would you just walk by them and not warn them? What if you and your kids are playing in a park and see a cougar. Do you tell the other families or just leave? The park was collecting fees and regulation activity. To not disclose a known risk was, in my opinion, criminally negligent.

Good grief, city slicker's should just stay in the city...it's safer.

I wonder what exactly took place at that campsite, a little bit of common sense would go a long way........

Where were the parents while this bear was ripping into the tent and mauling their child ?

I see they were suing to try to "make a difference", it doesn't say what they plan to do with all that free money...

This lack of personal responsibility and common sense is sickening.

Did they sue the tent manufacturer ? Was there a warning label stating that the tent was not bear proof ?

That guy took on the goat while he sent the others in the party back......probably whacked the goat in the head with his walking stick......not that goats enjoy that or anything. Ask KK.......Yo! KK! Do goats like a good "whacking"?

Who will get the blame when one of the reintroduced wolves bites something/someone ?

I cannot believe how many people enter the woods with no clue of what is possible or how to deal with it. For a family to sleep with food and trash in the woods is ridiculous. I had a buddy who decided sleeping with a bag of doritos would be a great idea. I told him to stfu and get that [censored] out the tent if he wanted me to cuddle up with him.

He got rid of the doritos, I got really hammered and they took pictures of a pitbulls vagina in my face. Those guys were assholes. But we survived the night free of bear attacks.

Big Jim is a tough act to follow, especially when trying to be serious, but here goes....

There is no question that what happened here was tragic, and I can't imagine the hurt it would cause me to lose one of my kids that way. I will buy that they should have put up signs, but I don't buy any argument that suggests doing so would have done anything to prevent this freak attack from occurring.

I know this is easy to say from the outside, but I understand that I am responsible for my own safety and that of my family when I take them into the woods. Frankly, if I arrived at a campsite with my family and saw signs indicating that bears had been active in the area, I would not turn around and head for home. I would go about the business of spending quality time with the family in the great outdoors, just as I set out to do. Whether there are warning signs or not, I know that bears, cougars, etc. exist and are potentially deadly, but I also know that the odds of anything bad happening, even if there is an encounter, are very slim, to the point where it isn't really worth worrying about. My guess is that this family would have done the same thing. Of course, I can't prove that any more than the attorneys who defended the Forest Service in this case, and therein lies the problem.

I think it sucks (a lot) that millions of tax dollars that were intended to benefit all of us (okay, that's a stretch) have been awarded to this family (and their attorneys) on grounds that the Forest Service failed to cover their asses by doing something that wouldn't have affected the tragic events that occurred. Where's the honest justice in that?

I'd like to think that the family will put their money to good use, but given the mentality that makes people think money compensates for the lost of a loved one, I have my doubts. More likely, little Samuel's dying legacy will be a bunch of consumer crap that ends up in landfills and the middle of the Pacific. I really hope I'm wrong.

Sad all around. Hope the little guy is happy, wherever he is. Hopefully, he's in a place where common sense rules the day and bad things don't happen to little kids.

No, that is hard to follow. Its true, and very very sad.

"but I also know that the odds of anything bad happening, even if there is an encounter, are very slim, to the point where it isn't really worth worrying about"

In this case it appears the odds were fairly high that a encounter could happen.


So, what I am hearing, is that common sense would not be to warn someone of a potentially dangerous situation? If you are the type of people that, after having your tent ripped apart the night before, would walk by a father and his small child and figure that "its the woods so they should just know" you are beyond sick.

Everyone keeps generalizing, but the truth is, this was an isolated situation where just a simply act of warning the people could very likely have saved a life. Sorry, but this is different than just camping. The state had put up an area that through activity of its patrons (other campers) had created a situation that was hazardous. They continued to collect fees but neglected to inform the people even though they thought it serious enough to take action against the hazard. This is not the same as the backwoods, nor is it the same as a park where no problem existed, nor is it the same as a unpoliced campground. The state had created a site that they knew would be catered by people, that many of these people would be novices, and that was policed by them. I am certain that in dry periods they put up signs telling people not to have fires. They probably have rules about where you can sleep and your behavior. All this makes it a commercial enterprise and makes them liable rather than just morally responsible.

If it were me, and most likely on the advise of my lawyers, at the first sign of a bear I would not only shut the campground down but all access to the forest within X miles. X miles are determined to be the average weeks range of a bear times 2. Now all of those people who show up for their annual camping trip will be turned away very pissed at our government but F those tax payers. One bad apple has spoiled it for everyone. Over time, unless we can cause the extinction of bears, National Forests will ony be available to the general public during hibernation.....until someone gets themselves killed, without prior warned of the danger, during that period. Gotta CYA now.

I'll make a quick observation that would cover my opinion on the matter for most every situation...

The USFS should never be held liable when a "general threat" becomes specific, i.e., "you're in the woods, bears live in the woods, and bears sometimes maul people"...and it happens.

The USFS should be held liable when a "specific threat" becomes an acute threat and something bad happens, i.e., the situation described in this thread.

The bear was around, and they knew it...the bear had already threatened other campers, and they knew it...the bear had already been in someone else's tent, and they knew it...and those who knew it had opportunities to share this very important information, and didn't.

In the law, these are some general questions you always need to ask...

1. Would a reasonable person recognize the risk? (the defendant)
2. Would a reasonable person communicate that risk? (the defendant)
3. Would a reasonable plaintiff not know about the risk?
4. Would a reasonable plantiff do something different and avoided the risk, if they had known about it?

In this case, I'd go with a pretty definite "yes" all around.

The USFS recognized this particular bear as a problem, and any reasonable person who recognized this threat would communicate it to people around who are in danger from the threat. There's no way the campers would have known about this specific threat if the USFS didn't tell them, and a reasonable person probably would have taken their child to a different area to avoid the risk if they were told about it.

Fish on...

Todd

City slickers AND lawyers.

Everyone bitches about lawyers until they need one.

Fish on...

Todd

That's the points I have been trying to make but Todd did a much better job of making those points than I did.

If it were a campground full of lawyers we'd need more bears.

So it comes down to a mistake and/or oversight by a USFC employee and thus an extension of the FC. It is settled just like any commercial case, per Todd's post. Unfortunately, I don't think the gov't has any way to check a prospective employee for common sense and good judgment, and even worse they don't have a way to get rid of an employee who lacks it, until they kill themselves, hurt someone, or send out a racial/sexist e-mail.

I think the over-arching results will be something like stlhd has described, a knee-jerk over-reaction. Probably a complete woods closure everywhere within 2 miles of a bear sighting or something. That is what many jurisdictions do for sharks in California, Hawaii and Florida. A single shark sighting will sometimes restrict beach usage for a week. Savvy surfers have learned to NOT report shark sightings when they know the swell is going to be good.

Would the next logical step be for the Forest Service to hire a team of high dollar lawyers to sue the employee for the money paid out ?

If the kids was mauled to death, can I assume several adults were also chewed up as they tried in vane to save the child ? Or were they on hold with 911 ?

Todd spoke of the legalities surrounding this event, which I agree with 100%, but beyond that I know that I would have warned any and all folks camped in the immediate vicinity that a bear was acting up and to beware.
Whether or not there were any legal obligations is not even an issue in my mind. To expect all campers to be knowledgeable about the wild is ridiculous.
To me it is akin to warning, or stopping, a blind man who is about to step into an open manhole. He treks along, tapping each side of his path with his cane, but missing the middle. He has no reason to expect danger.
I wouldn't want to live with the responsibility of having done nothing.

I can agree with spreading the word of recent activety, but awarding the family of this victim two million dollars is absurd.

I heard somewhere that the average kid can name like 1500 corporate logos and only 3 or 4 plant types.

A few years ago I was surveying a creek with a biologist, and just under an over pass there was black bear tracks. The only land that it could have been inhabiting was like a 4 or 5 acre chunk of forrest that had a real estate sign pinned to it.

Just a few years ago, a lady got killed by a black bear in Gig harbor. If you could see what that area looked like 10 years ago, and what it looks like today, you'd know why.

We're so used to there being a corporate logo pinned to something, that if shitt ever goes wrong, someone else will be at fault. Anyone who has ever cut down trees on a hunk of land is at fault with this one. Eco systems are shrinking/disappearing. Next time a coyote or coon gets in your trash, instead of killing it, go plant some trees.

Fa'shizzle Grizzle.

I had to refer to my abundance of wildlife and plant life knowledge the other day as random useless junk. People don't learn this stuff anymore, I remember audobon books, dinosaur books and zoobooks growing up and some military books but I read books either way.

I too grew up with my nose in every nature book, fishing book I could find, and watched every documentary that was on TV, etc. But I work with some guys/gals today who don't have a freakin clue about the bugs they step on or animals they crush with their cars. I don't know why there is no interest outside of the printed media that kids today are force fed....like "aren't those harbor seals cute?"....or "don't throw sticks for the dog in the river, you might disturb a fish".......etc.

A blind man that goes for a walk without expecting danger is a foolish blind man indeed!

It looks like a sign didn't help this poor fella'......who should be sued now? I mean we gotta' blame this on someone....

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/06/montana.grizzly.attack/index.html?&hpt=hp_c2

Seems like informed risk to me. The guy was informed of the risk and made a choice that didn't end well.

Sign seen at the base of a sea cliff on Fraser Island, Queensland, Oz, that we were about to hike up. "Your safety is our concern and your responsibility"

It's lookin' like a consent form oughta' need be signed from 206'rs headin' into the the 509.....wolves, bears and not nearly enough signs.

why would anyone want to fix "stupid" when the pay is SOOO GOOOOD?!