Judge awards $1.9M to family of boy killed by bear

JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press
Updated 05:33 a.m., Wednesday, May 4, 2011


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.



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Judge-awards-1-9M-to-family-of-boy-killed-by-bear-1364277.php

Not only do they shit but bears also LIVE in the woods. If you are camping you are in THEIR world. You are always at some risk in nature.

And the fact that judges are awarding this kind of money for the stupidity of human beings.

GEEEEZZZ!

to not close the campground or even warn the campers of this. THAT is what the family is upset over.

I live in the woods.

This land belonged to the bears and deer and coyote and bobcats, etc, long before I ever came here. It's theirs.

I do have mixed feelings about chasing off the larger predators, though. It's their land, but I don't want bears raiding my garage or trying to break into my home when I'm not here, so we scare them off with blanks fired from a 12-gauge shotgun.

I do enjoy seeing them out in the yard, though, and this time of year we know to look around before going outside.

Anyway, yes. Woods = wild critters. If you don't know the rules about food and garbage and all that, stay the hell in the city.

PS...I read a book by Bill Bryson in which he recounts his adventures while hiking the Appalachian Trail. One day he came upon a family camping in the woods. He was horrified to see that the parents were allowing their young child to HAND FEED scraps to a wild bear. Absolutely insane!!

what good did any of this do?

Me agreeing with someone else?

i know there are animals there. there may be bears. there are probably even signs posted. where does responsibility for our own actions begin!! i am sorry about the boy, but i don't understand what the forest service could have done. this is ridiculous.

when they paid an entrance fee, no waiver was signed

Read the article. The judge reduced the lawsuit to 65% of the $3 million normally awarded, in part due to the family's own negligence.

It's the fucking woods. Now people need to sign waivers to go into the woods?

get over it

Guess what, the rangers already know that every animal out there can hurt people that don't know what they are doing.

All this will do is force the rangers to close campsites for the slightest little thing in the future, or hand out stacks of waivers.

Wildlife and ignorant people don't mix. Get over it.

and the bear hasn't been caught.

Bear attacks on humans are very rare. When that happens the forrest service puts down the animal. Why? Because it is so incredibly rare for a bear to attack a human the risk of another attack is greatly increased.

A bear attacked a human in this campsite.
The bear hadn't been caught yet.
Forrest service failed to either a) close campsite until bear was caught or b) provide any warning whatsoever.

If you can't see that is negligence that nothing rises to the level of negligence.

The family didn't sue over the potential danger of any animal in the wild. The family sued over the very specific and real danger that a bear had recently attacked another human in that very campsite. A danger they were not warned about.

The bear "attacked" a tent where people were nearby to get at food.

According to article it hadn't harmed a human at that point.

:eyes:

I do believe that most/all State Parks post information, both on signs leading into the park, and in their brochures, warning people about the dangers of having any kind of food, or wrappers, on themselves or in their tents.


It's quite possible that this whole thing might not have happened if there was no scent of food in that tent.

1) Bears rarely attack humans.
2) Recently a bear attack a human at that campsite.

The prudent and logical thing would be to warn people. The Forrest service failed to due the prudent and responsible thing.

A sign indicated a recent bear attack and some precautions would have been prudent and satisfied their duty to act. Maybe the family would have decided not to camp. Maybe they would have ignored the warning but the duty of the forest service would have been met.

The Forrest service did nothing to warn the public of this danger (rather rare danger). Hence the judge found the forest service had a duty to act and negligent on that duty awarded damages to the family.

Bears almost never attack humans. So when a bear DOES attack a human that requires some level of response by the Forrest service.

When I lived in Alaksa, I was always aware that I was in bear country while hiking. However, lots of tourists have had no experience being in bear country. Even though I was experienced, I was still grateful when the forest service posted signs stating that bears have been seen in the area recently. Not only did that put my gaurd up even more, I know that it probably helped less experienced people be more aware.

They should have posted a notice. It is their responsibility to help people stay safe in national parks.

People need signs now to figure out that there are bears in the forests of Alaska? Really?

Sounds like the dipshits that build their huge houses in the mountains surrounding PHX and bitch about the coyotes and snakes and javalena and scorpions. Um, they were there first people. If you live and walk in their environment, you may just meet one.

Have you ever been to American Fork? I have. There should have been signs, and when the family paid to enter and spoke to the Forest Ranger, they should have been warned.

I was responding to your post about living in Alaska though.

Sorry, but the award is outrageous.

They had food in their tent. Stupid.

The forest service of Alaska took this task very seriously. They did good work. In fact, I remember one family visiting from the lower 48 asking me about hiking (I was working at a park station kiosk one summer), and they were concerned about the posted "caution" signs of recent bear sightings near the trail. Given that they had young children with them, they opted out of hiking that day.

What's your beef if it can help save a "dipshit's" life, or are they better off dead anyway?

But anyone with one iota of sense knows that there are wild animals out in the wilderness.

$1.9M is outrageous. Maybe cut it in half, cause the family was at fault as well.

I can at least argue that if signs had been posted the Forest Service would not have been sued.

If you know nothing about camping and the dangers do not camp.

ignore. Your last two posts and all future posts are DOA, as far as I'm concerned.

If there weren't any signs posted and if there were aggressive bear(s) that had recently attacked another camper then it sounds like they were negligent in not closing and or warning the campers.

$2m really seems like a small pittance for the loss of a son and the nightmares that will ensure forever.

They knew they had a problem bear but chose to not warn the campers, to not put up a sign. They were wrong.

But...there are risks when camping in the outback, and it is incumbent upon oneself to take the proper precautions.

This may have happened whether the family received any warning or not.

I heard on the radio that while yes, there weren't signs posted, the family kept open food inside their tent. Sorry, I don't care what forest you're camping in, you don't keep food inside the tent. You stow it in your vehicle, outside the camp area, or roped up in a tree. Basics of camping. Otherwise you can expect all sorts of critters to come around, not just bears.

And if you had ever lost a child, you MIGHT begin to understand the devastation.

What a senseless thing to say

I have had a sister ripped away from me by rape and murder at a young age. Don't presume to know all about my life, my trials, my tragedies.

But the fact of the matter is that this family acted like fucking idiots. Even in the most tame of camping sites, where bears are hundreds of miles away, you simply don't store food in your tent because doing so will attract any manner of creatures, from raccoons and skunks, to coyotes and yes, bears.

This is rule one of camping, but sadly, far too many idiots don't follow it. This family paid a huge price for their stupidity, no doubt, but now they want the state to pay part of that price as well. Sorry, but I don't believe in others paying for one's own stupidity.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The negligence of the family to not practice safe camping doesn't mitigate the negligence of Forrest service in their failure to warn the public.

If someone is a bad driver and the brakes in their Toyota failed and they crashed would their bad driving record (negligence) be a valid reason for Toyota to avoid paying for their negligence (brake defect and failure to warn public). Your answer would seem to indicate yes. Thankfully our legal system doesn't work that way. It is possible for 2, 3, 200 entities to be simultaneously negligent and the negligence of one doesn't erase the negligence of the others.

Since when one is driving their Toyota, they assume that the brakes will work.

When going out into the woods, one assumes that critters will be attracted to food, that is one of the most basic rules of camping.

Because bear attacks are very rare. The negligence of the family doesn't erase the negligence of the Forrest Service.

Brakes being defective are rare. Bears attacking are also rare. When the responsible entity doesn't disclose a bear attack or brake failure it is logical that one would assume neither has happened. A false assumption in both cases created by a failure to warn about a highly dangerous and rare event.

Because essentially, that is true. Ones brakes could fail at any moment. You take that risk every time you drive a car, too. If a car mechanic knew your brakes were seriously faulty, but didn't tell you, he/she would be liable, too. It's the same thing.

You've been listening to too many right-wingers. lol That's their favorite expression.

in the tent

I imagine they have a responsibility to "remove" it and give due notice to people in the area. Tough call though, do you just the entire canyon down while you look for a bear that might be a hundred miles away by now? I guess that's why I'm not a bearologist.

to return to places where they had found food previously. The bear was very likely to be in the same territory, and unforunately was...

they go into the wild...sucks for this little boy to have such ignorant parents.

can/will rip through wood or metal to get to open food.

I have a large chest type freezer out in my barn. Yes, the food is frozen, but I always worry that a bear might someday get a notion to go through the door and rip the freezer to shreds trying to get at it.

In the summertime, I don't even like to keep bread or pastries or such on my counter, especially with the windows open. Bears can smell that stuff a mile away. Who needs a 350 lb bear clawing through their window screens trying to get fudge brownies...

The Forest Service knew the danger, failed to report, and charged the family anyway.

Where's the compassion?

The wildlife in the woods is the campers responsibility.

was done routinely, as the Forest Service of AK took seriously the job of protecting people enjoying the park.

for the latter, their compassion takes a back seat to their conservatism. For the former, their compassion takes a back seat to their superior knowlege and their open contempt for anybody else who does not share it.

I feel bad for this family, but it's their responsibility to educate themselves.

IF they know there is a heightened risk because, they shouldn't say something? Yes, there are bears in the woods, but the actual chances of encountering one and being mauled are still fairly low. Yes, if bears have attacked campsites and they're tracking them, campers should be notified. It's a heightened risk. People have a right to calculate that risk.

they didn't attack the other campers...

about the previous attack. Or they may have been a lot more careful. They had the right to know.

I have witnessed duly warned hikers opting out of hiking.

I would, too. I'm told a bear attacked a campsite the previous day? Holliday Inn, here I come. Especially if I've got my kids.

hike a particular trail after a particularly horrible bear attack. In that case, the FS closed the trail until the bear could be found, sedated, and relocated.

The Forest service knew, charged the family for enterring the camp, and didn't warn them.

This isn't a matter of speculation. A case went to court. The Judge ruled for the family.

Bears live in a woods, especially in Utah.

Hello? Common sense? Are you there?

They apparently love the taste of anything remotely sweet, and toothpaste is sweet, so they go after the tubes. The bears in Yosemite are quite aggressive and signs are posted everywhere warning campers not to leave any food visible anywhere.

So the family was partially at fault.

I've been to the camp area where the boy was killed. When I lived in Utah, we loved camping and hiking in American Fork. At the entrance to the park are the Timpanogos Caves. The area is a very active tourist spot. You have to pay a fee to enter. We're not talking about the Great White North here. The camp sites are well maintained, some with benches and fire pits. It is unreasonable to think that just 12 hours before, there was a level 3 bear warning (the most dangerous) for the same camp area and no one bothered to tell the family when they paid to come in...

If the Forest Service profits by your visit, and knew of the danger but didn't warn you, damn straight they should be responsible, at least in part, which is exactly what the Judge ruled.

With that bear warning the Forest Service most certainly does deserve blame. I've camped in bear activity areas in national parks and we were READ a handout on proper bear precautions when we paid the camp fee at some and at others we had to attend a meeting with a ranger before we were cleared to pitch a tent. My partner has camped in remote national park/forest lands where the sites were inside chain link fence enclosures. In general, these public park/recreational areas don't mince words when it comes to bear precautions.

And have no clue what the proper procedures are. Frankly, the precautions taken when you camped in bear activity areas would be good for every person camping in a national park. Heck, considering how ignorant people are about grazing animals - bison and elk, for instance - they should be READ precautions about all wildlife, not just carnivores.

It's too early to know what this family will do with their award. Recently, in the thread about the tourists who walked right up to Old Faithful geyser someone mentioned the family who lost a son when he fell into a thermal spring. They also sued the National Forest Service mostly to force them to upgrade their safety warnings and set up a foundation with the money they won. The foundation encourages safety practices at public areas. Maybe this family will do something similar to help provide precautions and to educate people about the dangers at wildlife areas.

they secretly plotted to find a campsite where a bear had been 12 hours before, then bamboozled the ranger when they paid to enter the site, so he would get flustered and forget to warn them, then packed food and wrappers around their 11 year old son, hoping the bear would come back and drag the boy off to his death, just so they could sue for two million dollars.

Yep, you nailed it. Bravo.

you may as well argue with a tree in your yard.

They're be in a mansion and new trucks in a week.

The first thing anyone who camps knows is not to have anything like this anywhere near their campsite. Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I'm sorry about the loss of their son, but to award them money for their own stupidity isn't right.

They were awarded money for the stupidity (negligence) of Forrest Service failing to disclose a high level risk.

The stupidity of family doesn't erase the negligence of the forrest service.

hello? Bears hunt for food!

There are thousands of campers all over the world right now with wrappers galore. And they won't be eaten today. Even if they had steaks stapled to their asses and pickanick baskets tied to strings hanging out their noses. You know why? Because contrary to popular belief in this thread, there aren't bears behind every tree waiting to jump out and gobble up people. Because bears attacking humans is extremely rare.

This is what happened. Horrified parents found their bloodied and batterd child eaten by a bear, and this forest service said "Oh, yeah! We were looking for that one! It was here attacking this very site just yesterday... Huh.. Guess you probably would have liked to have about known that. Sorry." Who was the idiot?

The Forest Service had a duty to warn the campers. How hard is that to understand?

I don't see how it could have gone any other way.

From the other articles, it was stated that the bear had been at the same campsite 12 hours earlier and had basically tore through the tent that was at that site. It was considered a level 3 (dangerous) bear, which meant they expected it to be trouble.

Bears return to where they found food.

Of course the camp owner had a duty to disclose this. It was foreseeable.

Regardless of bears being dangerous and present in the woods, we know enough about bear behavior to predict that they will return to the same place for food.

thank you. I am glad to see some people here who actually read what this was about.

It's just pathetic.

If it is practice to close sights or warn campers when a known dangerous bear is on the loose and they chose not to, then the USFS should be held accountable.

Being dragged away and mauled by bear is probably one of the worst ways to die. Poor kid and family.

Organizations, including the government, put in place procedures to prevent injury AND to mitigate damage in the event of injury and the resulting lawsuits. Don't follow those procedures and look out below.

Nothing gets an organization "back on track" doing things by the book like a large payout. It works for corporations and it works for non corporate entities.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and the list.

and the beach wasn't closed nor was any warning provided?

In that case yes a lawsuit would be 100% correct.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In most cases more than one party can be liable however the Forrest services stupid decision to not inform public of a bear attack was negligent.

Cars crash. As a result was Toyotas failure to disclose break problems not negligent? I mean after all cars do crash so one should just accept that when you drive in a car it could crash.

The level of could (risk) is what matters.
The risk in a Toyota was higher than normal. Toyota knew this and the public didn't.
The risk to this family was higher than normal. Forrest Service knew this and the public didn't.

A shark in an area where they're not normally seen...yes. Close the beach, notify the public. Like in the movie "Jaws" where a Great White, not normal in New England coastal waters, kills some people.

But here we're talking about the woods. Where bears and cougars and other large predators likely live. Are people so ignorant of the world outside their own little city-pods that they don't even know there are wild creatures in the wild? Maybe they think the woods are full of Bambi, squirrels, and happy little bluebirds. Oh, with the Seven Dwarves thrown in for good measure...


You know, we laugh when manufacturers have to put warning labels on their products that warn people not to do some idiotic thing with them...table saw: do not stand on saw table while in use. Hair dryer: do not use while asleep or while bathing. Hot coffee: caution! HOT!!!

It often amazes me that we're called the most intelligent species on earth. We sure the hell don't act like it sometimes.

Woods, wild areas = wild animals. Wild animals like human food. Keep all food...even candy...somewhere else besides your pockets or your tent.

I feel for this family, but really, they're idiots.

Independent of the families actions the Forrest service was negligence.

Bears very rarely attack humans. It is incredibly rare. So rare that when it happens the bear is usually captured and put to sleep because of the increased risk that animal presents.

So the family isn't suing over the "generic" risk a bear presents but rather the undisclosed risk of a bear attack in that very campsite less than a day prior.

The judge is saying that at a minimum the Forrest service has a duty to inform campers of a recent bear attack. A rather low burden. The Forrest service failed to do so and as such was negligent. How stupid the family is has no bearing. The level of family stupidity didn't affect the Forrest service failure to warn the public.

The law isn't giving the family money because they "deserve" it. They law is fining the Forrest service because THEY deserve it.

was not on a human. It was on a tent.

... being eaten. Not to mention poor Pippin.

edit: changed that poster to you.

The Great White was not native to New England. The Mayor should have closed the beaches. Or posted warnings, at the very least.

Evidence?

Or just the way it "looks"?


whatever...

:shrug:

.... for NOT closing the beaches?

"You can maul the humans for $2 mil."

Wonder if the bear thought it was worth it?

I wonder if the bear thought it was worth it...

Humans are idiots.


Sometimes I really hate my own species.


That bear learned how to get easy food. Why? Because some IDIOT humans made it easy for him.

The ones who started the whole thing...who knows...maybe when he was a cub?

They are responsible for the death of this bear. They taught him how to get food. He tried to get it and, being a bear, he mauled a kid. I'll bet the kid had candy in his pockets. That would explain the mauling...the bear trying to get in his pockets for the food.

People who feed bears are responsible for weakening their fear of humans. They're responsible for the deaths of the animals, and for the deaths of any humans those bears attack because they're no longer afraid of humans.

God, I could just throttle the human idiots out there....

"after the bear attacked another camper."
"after the bear attacked another camper."
"after the bear attacked another camper."
"after the bear attacked another camper."


Bears very rarely attack a camper. If a bear recently attacked a camper this isn't a normal level of danger. This is a heightened risk. It is unusual for a bear to attack a human. Very unusual. Millions of people go camping every year maybe a dozen get attacked by bears. So 99.9999999% of humans are NOT attacked by bears.

Not only had a bear attack a human, A bear attacked a human AT THAT EXACT CAMPSITE LESS THAN ONE DAY PRIOR.
A very recent dangerous and rare event.

The forrest service failed to either:
a) close campsite
b) alert the public.

Hence the Forrest service failed to in their duty to act. The family didn't sue because they didn't know bears CAN (theoretically) attack humans. They sued because they were not informed that a bear DID attack a human in this VERY CAMPSITE where their son died. The judge didn't raise the bar to Forrest service providing waives for any potential danger but one should expect the Forrest service to provide warning for very specific and EXTREMELY RARE dangers.



100% good ruling.

"Litigious society" is one of those memes that once it bores itself into the brain, it's lodged in there for good, facts be damned. There's no use pointing out those facts. It will do no good.

According to the article the first "attack" was on a tent alone. I've yet to see an injury report on the first attack. Other articles mention only an attack on a tent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If I read the article right. That seems like more than a case of just a bear being peckish. I'm sorry, but I'd want to be aware of that situation.

Would take 1/2 hour.

The woods are full of dangers especially for the foolish.

This really wouldn't have been a big deal.

Seems that word is used loosely in the article. It "attacked" a tent storing coolers of food.

Sorry, but surrounding your child with food in a tent in the wild is far more culpable than the forest service not saying "A bear stole some food from a tent earlier".

I'd have ruled the family 90% responsible.

Hence you agree with the judges ruling.

I wouldn't have awarded the family any money though. They bare the bulk of the blame.

It was the right ruling.

Hypotheticals are not a reason to award $1.9M

The award is on the fact that Forrest service failed to disclose a risk. A rare and highly dangerous risk.
Nothing hypothetical about that.

Had the Forrest service disclosed the risk then regardless of what the family did or didn't do they would have no case.

You just admitted the Forrest service is at least partially to blame. Hence they are negligent and liable for damages.

Under our legal system would two statement was mutually exclusive.
a) Forrest Service is negligent.
b) I wouldn't award any damages for their negligence.

Under such a situation the only lawful reason a judge could award no damages would be if he believed the Forrest service IS liable but the damages incurred by the family are trivial. i.e. family had a napkin shredded by the bear.

Given the zeal at which you seem interested in punishing the "stupid" it is good you never became a judge.

It was enough to send them out looking for the bear. If it caused them enough concern for them to do that? They could have thrown up the caution.

Not when they are to blame for their own behavior (surronding their child with food while out in the wild)

They assumed a risk incorrectly through no fault of their own.

They were already being stupid.

They weren't assuming a huge risk. Or rather, without the rogue bear that the serive was hunting down without their knowledge, they wouldn't have been.

There are millions of stupid campers each year. I know I backpack the Appalachian trail (idiots have booze parties in the backpacker shelters as one example). The reality is being stupid is a low level of risk. Millions of stupid campers. A half dozen fatalities from bears each year. The family was being stupid.

None of that eliminates the negligence of Forrest Service for failing to disclose a significant hazard. The high level of risk was camping in a campsite where a bear attack had recently occurred. A risk the family wasn't made aware of.

As a lifelong camper, 50% seems way too low based on their behavior.

A level of duty the service failed to meet.

Would that take half an hour? Hardly.

Bear attacks are rare, very rare. The belief that the Forrest service couldn't warn the public when one happens is silly. Would take all of 30 seconds and 99% of the days no warning would be needed.

The judge didn't find the Forrest Service negligent for not warning of "generic" risks but rather a failure to disclose this singular high risk event.

You mean foolish like living in Hurricane prone areas? lol

It's one thing to understand a risk, even a rare risk. It's another thing to sue others because of personal decisions.

And if you withhold pertinent information that another can use to make an informed decision, you can be held liable. Hurricanes are a bad analogy, because how can one really withhold information like that. But just like people selling homes can't withhold valuable information from potential buyers, the park service can't withheld valuable information, like the fact they were hunting down a rogue bear from the people they were renting out camping space to (the very same space) a day later. That's very valuable risk/benefit information most reasonable people like to have. They withhold it and someone suffers damage as a result, they are liable.

If someone chums water where sharks swim, puts their child in swimming and their child gets killed, then I hold them primarily responsible for making stupid decisions even if a shark attack had occurred on that beach earlier.

Same with the bear. They surrounded their child with food in an area where bears eat. That's the primary reason their child is now dead.

Could the government have warned them a bear broke into a tent and got a food earlier? Yes. Should they have? Probably. I think we all agree on this.

Should the government liable for $1.9 million because these parents made a fundamentally stupid decision? That's where we disagree.

Unless you think the government should never be held liable, ever. Look, this isn't a case where a bear just came out of the woods randomly. They didn't make a stupid decision. They made a decision without all the key pieces of information, because information was withheld from them. Big difference.

They camped in an area where bears live and put food and trash inside their tent. That's a stupid decision even if no bears had been seen scavenging. Maybe you don't camp much, but anyone who hikes or camps will tell you that is a very stupid thing to do.

Yep, that was stupid. Not telling campers you're hunting down a rouge bear. Much worse.

It's why they're getting 1.5 mill instead of the full 3. I agree with that. Both parties had some culpability, and that was taken into consideration. But the fact is, they should have been made aware and weren't. Compensation isn't just for the person receiving it. I"m glad they're having to fork over the money, because I want to be sure I"m being told when I go camping, too. The damages should hurt. They should be paying attention.

But one party is now $1.9M richer for their stupidity and one party had to pay it all. Whatever.

For extra credit, tells us why campers shouldn't be made aware of said alert. For even more credit, tells why a family shouldn't be made aware of the fact the bear is considered dangerous enough they are looking for the bear to kill it.

oh wait.. that's not what happened:eyes:

How sad they chose to not warn people that there was an aggressive bear in the area that had already attacked someone. can't be scaring away paying campers, can they.

Noticed I did not use the term "people". I thought for a second I might be reading posters by Freepers.

So a kid gets killed, it's the family's fault?

You that think animals are equivalent to, or more important than humans, truly disgust me.:puke:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If you're going to camp in bear habitat, you assume the risk.

Not keep it a secret. Especially when they attacked in the same area.

Thats black bear habitat. Assume the risk...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's what the world needs...

Maybe they'll look at it every day and think of how it was paid for with the life of their child.

If the attack had been unprovoked by anything, including food, then I would probably be more sympathetic. But stupid people do shit like this all the time. Fail to get important information beforehand.

They may not have known about the previous attack on the other tent, but they absolutely should have known that as soon as you step out of the city, you do NOT carry food on your person or in your tent.

It's truly scary how full of stupidity this world is...

people, or the people who thought they would be warned?

Many people do not know how to act and behave in the woods. We're guests out there in what could become a hostile environment. I've seen too many rookie campers not use bear bags, act like slobs in camp and otherwise invite four legged guests. I don't fear the woods nor do the people I hike with fear it either, we've learned to blend in and live by the rules there.

I like the big airtight boxes to keep food in. if there is nothing to use i leave that and the cooler in the car unless i see bear wires in the trees with bear bags, then i know that it is there for a reason and use it.

They went camping and were stupid enough to believe they'd be free of wandering wildlife? Newsflash people! Bears still live in the woods! Signs were posted!

I can't believe that family got $1.9 M for their stupidity.

Many people don't know that the police have no legal liability to protect you--if you call in to say that your home is being invaded by a dozen rapist-murderers, and the police through preventable failure don't get there in time to save you... they aren't liable in the least. So now, the Forest Service is more liable for protecting campers than the police are for protecting people in their homes. How wild is that?

no money, nothing, they had food in their tent, that is stupid. They didnt take into account the danger. I cannot see how the park is responsable. Like when i was a teenager and decided to cross a little inlet between 2 islands in florida, captavia and sanibel i think, totally ignorant about the sharks. had i died it would have been my fault, stupidity on my part not knowing about sharks and where they hung out.

i was camping in northern colorado, before the tree die off, and we left an unmanned campground because of all the huge ass bear paw prints in the mud all over the place. when we got about an hour down the gravel road to a manned campground they told us 'yep, lots of bears up at grizzly bear meadows, and here too but not in the campground. the good old boy hadnt seen any bear or track in the camp. we camped there but not with food in the tent.

The wilderness is not an amusement park. If morons can sue the government for their own lack of wilderness training, then I suppose we have no choice but to require a permit to visit national parks. At least then morons can't claim no one ever told them bears are dangerous.

but with a lot of people siding with the mayor.