Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Utah Family Wins Two-Million Dollar Lawsuit Over Campground Bear Attack

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

May 04, 2011

Utah Family Wins Two-Million Dollar Lawsuit Over Campground Bear Attack

By Chad Love

A jury has awarded $1.9 million to the parents of a boy killed in 2007 by a bear in a Utah campground.

From this story on Seattlepi.com:

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.

Reaction?

Comments (12)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

When in bear country, an adult in every tent, and a handgun for every adult.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

I feel their pain, but I don't like this result. I don't know the full story, but the last thing I want is for agencies to be given reason to close wild areas to the public becuase wild creatures live there. I'd prefer that the message was that campers should have been warned, then allowed to exercise their own judgement.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MJC wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

I don't know about $1.95 million but if the Forest Service knew they had a problem bear on their hands they should have posted a warning at the very least. Anyone who goes camping knows that the animals are part of the reason they are there, but if one is known to be a problem, those working to solve the problem should let people know about it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bdarak wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Sad story, but I dont know the full situation, were the campers careless? Did they leave food around and not stored safely? They should have been warned that there was a problem bear, but they should know that when you go camping you are in the bears territory not your own take extra precautions to be safe.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bandito143 wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

I believe the real issue with this lawsuit is the establishment of a legal precedent. Now every victim of a wild animal attack on government land has a successful case to reference, allowing for more lawsuits to be heard by the courts, and ultimately more of the Forest Service's limited conservation dollars being siphoned away by litigation.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Muleynut30.06 wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Its a sad story but this could set a very president if you ask me. People dont need any more reasons to sue now even an unfortunate act of nature someone can be sued.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jacee wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

"Camp at your own risk" sign should be at each campsite. Animal encounters should be planned for when you are in nature, and entering the park there is plenty of literature on bears and bear safety. $2 million does not bring back thier son, and it is terrible he was killed.. But it also doesn't keep a bear from attacking you, cause a bear doesn't care how much money you have or whether you read the sign or if you have a shred of common sense. It is a scary precedent, and unfortunately it will be difficult to undo this lawsuit. Animals and humans alike will suffer as a result of this lawsuit and policy that will result...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Sad story yes. But this happened right up in my back yard and there's more to it than is reported.

The family was indeed careless leaving food/garbage out, specifically open pepsi cans and a few granola wrappers.

Also, the kids were in one tent and the two parents in another. Why was there no attempt by the parents (mother and step-father) to save the boy? They were totally unaware of the attack as they were completely incapacitated by alcohol. Some have also said marijuana was present but that hasn't been confirmed like the alcohol.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from tkbone wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

If you took time to read the article, the judge assigned 35% fault to the campers and 65% to the US Forest Service.

The forest service had actual notice of a problem, aggressive bear in the vicinity shortly before the attack. Without that notice and failure to act, there's no liablity. This doesn't set a precedent making the forest service pay for "every animal attack" - only the very rare case in which they have notice of a problem animal and don't take appropriate action to notify users.

Everyone hates other people's lawsuits, but would have certainly done the same thing in this family's position. Put yourself in their shoes rather than blaming them.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from db270 wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

I have never had the horrible experience of losing a child, but I also don't understand the mentality of suing for cash after something like this. Maybe legal action to make positive procedure change, or to start awareness programs, etc.; but I don't think I could ever be happy spending money that was a result of the death of my child.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hockey86 wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

I agree "db270", how could you ever spend a dime of that money? I would have to take every penny and either give it to charity or use it to educate people about being in the "wild" with wild animals. Last time I checked the bear didn't break into their home rather they intruded into his home.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I believe this is was a hard lesson to learn for both sides of the fence. The parents will live with there doubt,guilt, or any other emotion that goes with losing a child. The bear, well, was being a bear and he was killed because of it. Having said this, I have followed the story from TV accounts, but not being in the court room to hear all the facts; I would say if the Judge used a "shared" responsibility as mentioned, I would agree with his findings. As for sacrifice, the child's loss of life trumps the bear's life.
I don't think the court award is unreasonable.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from jcarlin wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

I feel their pain, but I don't like this result. I don't know the full story, but the last thing I want is for agencies to be given reason to close wild areas to the public becuase wild creatures live there. I'd prefer that the message was that campers should have been warned, then allowed to exercise their own judgement.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from bandito143 wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

I believe the real issue with this lawsuit is the establishment of a legal precedent. Now every victim of a wild animal attack on government land has a successful case to reference, allowing for more lawsuits to be heard by the courts, and ultimately more of the Forest Service's limited conservation dollars being siphoned away by litigation.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jacee wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

"Camp at your own risk" sign should be at each campsite. Animal encounters should be planned for when you are in nature, and entering the park there is plenty of literature on bears and bear safety. $2 million does not bring back thier son, and it is terrible he was killed.. But it also doesn't keep a bear from attacking you, cause a bear doesn't care how much money you have or whether you read the sign or if you have a shred of common sense. It is a scary precedent, and unfortunately it will be difficult to undo this lawsuit. Animals and humans alike will suffer as a result of this lawsuit and policy that will result...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from MaxPower wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Sad story yes. But this happened right up in my back yard and there's more to it than is reported.

The family was indeed careless leaving food/garbage out, specifically open pepsi cans and a few granola wrappers.

Also, the kids were in one tent and the two parents in another. Why was there no attempt by the parents (mother and step-father) to save the boy? They were totally unaware of the attack as they were completely incapacitated by alcohol. Some have also said marijuana was present but that hasn't been confirmed like the alcohol.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from db270 wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

I have never had the horrible experience of losing a child, but I also don't understand the mentality of suing for cash after something like this. Maybe legal action to make positive procedure change, or to start awareness programs, etc.; but I don't think I could ever be happy spending money that was a result of the death of my child.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

When in bear country, an adult in every tent, and a handgun for every adult.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MJC wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

I don't know about $1.95 million but if the Forest Service knew they had a problem bear on their hands they should have posted a warning at the very least. Anyone who goes camping knows that the animals are part of the reason they are there, but if one is known to be a problem, those working to solve the problem should let people know about it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bdarak wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Sad story, but I dont know the full situation, were the campers careless? Did they leave food around and not stored safely? They should have been warned that there was a problem bear, but they should know that when you go camping you are in the bears territory not your own take extra precautions to be safe.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Muleynut30.06 wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

Its a sad story but this could set a very president if you ask me. People dont need any more reasons to sue now even an unfortunate act of nature someone can be sued.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hockey86 wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

I agree "db270", how could you ever spend a dime of that money? I would have to take every penny and either give it to charity or use it to educate people about being in the "wild" with wild animals. Last time I checked the bear didn't break into their home rather they intruded into his home.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 2 years 3 weeks ago

I believe this is was a hard lesson to learn for both sides of the fence. The parents will live with there doubt,guilt, or any other emotion that goes with losing a child. The bear, well, was being a bear and he was killed because of it. Having said this, I have followed the story from TV accounts, but not being in the court room to hear all the facts; I would say if the Judge used a "shared" responsibility as mentioned, I would agree with his findings. As for sacrifice, the child's loss of life trumps the bear's life.
I don't think the court award is unreasonable.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tkbone wrote 2 years 6 weeks ago

If you took time to read the article, the judge assigned 35% fault to the campers and 65% to the US Forest Service.

The forest service had actual notice of a problem, aggressive bear in the vicinity shortly before the attack. Without that notice and failure to act, there's no liablity. This doesn't set a precedent making the forest service pay for "every animal attack" - only the very rare case in which they have notice of a problem animal and don't take appropriate action to notify users.

Everyone hates other people's lawsuits, but would have certainly done the same thing in this family's position. Put yourself in their shoes rather than blaming them.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment