[pct-l] lawsuits in wilderness settings

[shon mcganty]

Currently two families in Washington are suing the federal government over deaths; the National Park Service is being sued following a mountain goat killing a hiker, and the National Forest Service is being sued because an 11 yr old girl was killed after a SUV-size ice chunk fell from a mountain, killing her.   Both are certainly sad cases, but it got me wondering about under what circumstances it's right to sue when a death or accident occurs in the wilderness.
 
That got me thinking about the famous case of the 11 yr old boy in Utah who was killed by a bear.  I've never known the details, so I began to research it, and I wanted to sharewhat I've found (as well as wondering if anyone knows of any other examples).
 
The Utah case involves the death of 11 yr old Samuel, who was inside his tent and was grabbed by a black bear and mauled.  The family sued both the federal government and state government.
 
In the federal case, the judge found the USFS at fault, with an award of $1.9 million for the family. How can that be???  How can anyone or any orgainization be responsible for a wild animal's act??
 
To quote an article:
"His family sued, claiming that U.S. Forest Service officials didn't warn anyone that a bear was on the loose. Among the evidence they presented: that same bear attacked another camper in the same spot 12 hours earlier."
 
-My thoughts:  Several sites I read state this fact, the same bear "attacked" another camper, but no article in the media defines what is meant by "attack."  The use of the word "attack" should be reserved for any physical attack, where there is direct contact of the bear touching, scratching, biting, or mauling a person, right?  But I wouldn't be surprised if the "attack" could have been a camper perceiving a threat by a close encounter with an aggressive bear (huffing, stomping of feet ect).  I'd like to know. 
 
"This situation could have been prevented had they simply taped off the area," Rebecca Ives (mother) said.   
-Delving further into the details, the 1st camper who was "attacked" told the forest service, and the FS immediately responded by forming a man hunt to find the bear, which was unsuccessful.  The campground had general warning signs of the presence bears in the region.
 
-In his ruling, the judge divvied up blame for the boy's death. "He found the federal government 65-percent responsible. The state, the judge said, was 25 percent responsible. The Ives family, the judge ruled, was 10 percent liable."  "Unfortunately, Sam had a candy bar in the tent," said the family's attorney, Allen Young.
 
-Notice how the judge uses the word "responsible." In my opionion I find this an unfortunate state of American/Western culture, where there always has to be some person or group responsible or at fault.  Why can't there just be accidents?   I just got done watching a TED talk about the different types of thinking with Indian culture and Western culture, and I think it applies.  Western thought is all linear, logical, absolute, and cause and effect.  This works great for science and some other disciplines, but not all aspect of life has to be so straight foreward.  Things sometimes just happen.  There's no crystal ball that can say if the FS had placed warnings and went around talking to campers (1st, they were busy out searching for the bear) that this family would have packed up and left.
 
"Meanwhile, Ives' family hoped the federal government would take do more to warn campers about bear attacks. They suggested the federal government create a more instantaneous alert system which they dubbed a 'Sam Alert.'"
 
-Really?  A new alert system?  Lets have a warning siren to alert us of all dangers.
 
 
(Mr. Ives, the father), "But we'll see. We'll see if they'll actually do their job. They are the federal government, so it's questionable whether they'll do their job."
 
 
Interestingly, as far as the state lawsuit, the judge threw out the case.
 
 
The families case and the case in WA with the 11 yr old girl where the chunk of ice fell on her, both rest on a lack of warning signs.  That reminds me of a lawsuit by a 13 yr old girl's mother, where the teenager got pregnant after using Spermicidal birth control, but still got pregnant.  The girl was using the Spermicidal cream orally, she was eating it!  The mother sued for a lack of directions how not to use the product.  Ummm..I guess warming signs have to be everywhere and include every imaginable situation.  
 
Sorry for this, I hope someone found it interesting.  If not, sorry again.
 
Shon