Dumb Aussies sue Federal Government for Bear attack

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by flameswin

As long as there are lawyers in this world, people will cash in off of bs cases like this.

As long as there are idiots who bring these cases to lawyers, lawyers will represent their rights and let the justice system and a group of impartial jurors decide whether the action is worthy of compensation or not.

If a plaintiff wants to pay me hourly and they have a colorable claim, why shouldn't their rights be represented?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Are you kidding me??? You sound like a lawyer.

Well at least I know I didn't waste those three years of law school

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty absurd claim on the surface, but my point is that there's more to it than just 'everyone knows there are bears in the woods'. If Parks Canada, or whoever the government entity is, knew of an issue and should have taken reasonable steps to deal with and chose not to there's liability. It's no different than a store owner knowing they have a hazard on the premises and not taking reasonable steps to protect customers.

To me signs warning of bears and educating on what to do to reduce the risk of bear attacks is more than enough to be considered reasonable, but I'm not an expert on bear management and evidently someone who is seems to think that whatever Parks Canada was doing in 1995 wasn't a reasonable approach.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by flameswin

As long as there are lawyers in this world, people will cash in off of bs cases like this.

As long as there are people like you, there will be clients.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by troutman

Would the Park have insurance for this?

Yeah, you and me, .... and all the rest of you.

[3 Justin 3]

If you're going to go camping be a man. Not a 8 year old little bitch.

[pope04]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Morons

Side self story, had a bear go into my campsite and even my tent 2 weeks ago in Yosemite NP, California. Scared it off banging a log, but ended up stealing my friends granola bars. It was mostly because we were reckless with our food lying around though.

Why not just nail some bear bells?

[TopChed]

nm

[ricosuave]

wouldnt the statute of limitations apply?

[GGG]

The lake louise tenting area now has an electric fence around it which is activated during the summer. The trailor park does not and only hard sided trailers are permitted.

I assume that this fence was added some time after that these bear attacks occurred.

[CaptainCrunch]

So this Australian decides to go hunting one day, he goes out in the woods with his rifle, he suddenly see's a bush moving and blazes away completely missing everything. A grizzly bear walks up to his and says "Look you have a choice, I can kill you right now, or you can bend over and I can have my way with you."

Of course the Aussies will to live kicks in and he bends over and gets some bear backdoor lovin'

After a week of sitting on an ice bag and feeling shame he goes out and buys a .50 cal machine gun and goes into the woods to regain his manhood. He creeps along and he suddenly sees a branch moving. He lines up the machine gun and empties the belt but misses everything. The same bear walks up to him and taps him on the shoulder and says.

"Look, I can kill you now, or you can bend over and I'm going to f$$$ you up the %%%"

After a week in the hospital the man now badly humiliated buys an anti-tank rocket, he rushes into the woods with revenge on his mind and sees the same bush moving, he fires a rocket missing the bush, and starting a major fire, suddenly he feels a tap on his shoulder and smells rancid bear breath on his back. Then he hears the terrible bear voice.

"You don't come here for the hunting do ya?"

And now you know why these guys are suing the bear, sexual assault is just wrong.

[Weiser Wonder]

We're here, we're queer. We don't want any more bears!

[killer_carlson]

I can't see the Aussie populace being too pleased with this kind of lawsuit. THey have pretty strong thoughts on American style tort lawsuits and they also, in my experience, value their wilderness as much as we do here.

I think once this hits the press back in Australia, this case goes away because the pressure on their families back home will be immense.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not really sure what's ridiculous about this, it's the same as any negligence action. If they can prove that the government agency should have instituted additional safety measures and didn't they have a legitimate claim. The fact that things have progressed to this stage, and that they have an expert testifying on their behalf, seems to indicate that there is at least an argument to be made that reasonable measures were not taken to prevent an attack like this.

National Parks in Canada are actually established to protect wilderness and the animals within from the humans without . . . . . they're not necessarily established to protect the humans who visit.

There is an implied risk when you're out in the wilderness and you're certainly advised to stay away from the wildlife as well as given advice as to how to police your campsite to ensure your safety and that's been the case for many, many decades.

Kind of funny the humans have to be put in a cage (electric fence) these days.

Sort of related . . . . . many, many, many years ago I was camping outside Jasper when a pretty young lady park warden came by with advice to relocate to another part of the campground as there had been nocturnal visits by a grizzly the previous few nights. I swelled my chest out to impress and declined, at which point she seemed to mutter something about "your funeral . . .," rolled her eyes and left. Later that night, I was holding my breath for about three minutes, cowering in a little ball as said grizzly was loudly sniffing my hair with a great deal of interest through the thin film of the tent flap . . . . . fortunately, I didn't soil my sleeping bag.

Cowperson

[icarus]

You'd like to think that a Canadian victim wouldn't have sued, but the fact of the matter is there a litigious people everywhere.

As long as I can remember, you get handed documentation about bear safety when you enter the national parks. As far as I'm concerned, that's the Parks Service's duty of care discharged right there.

[burn_baby_burn]

When I lived in Australia I saw lethally poisonous snakes all the time. I was leery any time I had to walk in tall grass because I knew that if I got bit by an eastern brown snake or a tiger snake that I might die from it. I never ever thought that if I did get bit by a snake that I could sue anybody. The thought would never cross my mind.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

When I lived in Australia I saw lethally poisonous snakes all the time. I was leery any time I had to walk in tall grass because I knew that if I got bit by an eastern brown snake or a tiger snake that I might die from it. I never ever thought that if I did get bit by a snake that I could sue anybody. The thought would never cross my mind.

You probably couldn't, but you're not really looking at it within the realm of tort law.

In the situation you described nobody owed you a duty of care, and therefore there's no possibility of breach and hence no ability to sue. In the present case there is, at least arguably, a duty of care owed to guests of the campground by Parks Canada. When you charge fees, provide services etc. you open yourself up to being found to owe such a duty, which then proceeds on to the whole discussion as to whether or not the emasures taken were sufficient to meet the duty owed.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

National Parks in Canada are actually established to protect wilderness and the animals within from the humans without . . . . . they're not necessarily established to protect the humans who visit.

There is an implied risk when you're out in the wilderness and you're certainly advised to stay away from the wildlife as well as given advice as to how to police your campsite to ensure your safety and that's been the case for many, many decades.

Kind of funny the humans have to be put in a cage (electric fence) these days.

I don't know what the wardens' actual mandate is (I'm sure I could look it up), but I would hope it's to look after not just the animals but the humans in the parks as well.

Also, I see the comedy in the humans being put in a cage so to speak, but on the other hand it's not like we're allowed to carry weapons into Banff National Park to defend ourselves, either. Sure there's bear spray, but I'm talking real fire power.

Bears probably aren't scared of people in the parks because we can't do sweet eff all to them. I'd be all for a cull or if that's too far some other means to control the population. For example, are they all tagged? I mean, I don't even know how many bears there are or if that's feasible, but it would be nice to not have to worry about them.

That said, you're a total if you sue the gov't because they didn't keep you safe. It sounds like these Aussies and I would like the parks to be the same (void of man-eating creatures); however, since they aren't, you have to take appropriate precautions and responsibility for being in the parks where bears live.

[algernon]

Hey, where's those two posters that LOVE all things Oz?
I mean, those guys should be in here defending Australia, as it's superior to Banff. I mean, they have the awesome culture of not letting bears attack, right?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by valo403

You probably couldn't, but you're not really looking at it within the realm of tort law.

In the situation you described nobody owed you a duty of care, and therefore there's no possibility of breach and hence no ability to sue. In the present case there is, at least arguably, a duty of care owed to guests of the campground by Parks Canada. When you charge fees, provide services etc. you open yourself up to being found to owe such a duty, which then proceeds on to the whole discussion as to whether or not the emasures taken were sufficient to meet the duty owed.

While I'll admit I've been out of the camping loop - aside from Kilimanjaro a few years ago - the last while, I don't think I've ever seen any campground that had a fence around it (although it sounds like they've done if for this one recently) specifically to keep wildlife out.

The existence of bear-proof garbage bins implies an expectation bears and other wildlife will visit the site.

Further, are certain campgrounds different than others?

You might surround a big one like Lake Louise with a fence but can you do that with every back-country campground? And what of areas where camping is permitted but no permanent, estabilished sites exist?

Where does the liability start or end?

This seems frivolous but it could be meaningful if an actual decision is rendered. Will all campgrounds everywhere have to close due to liability issues? For that reason, I have a tough time believing these guys would win anything. It's not very sensible.


Cowperson

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Bears probably aren't scared of people in the parks because we can't do sweet eff all to them. I'd be all for a cull or if that's too far some other means to control the population. For example, are they all tagged? I mean, I don't even know how many bears there are or if that's feasible, but it would be nice to not have to worry about them.

All for a CULL on grizzly bears so you don't have to worry about them??? Wow.

I believe the population in Alberta is teetering on the brink of extinction so this is so far the dumbest comment I've heard all day.

Stay the hell home if you don't want to worry about running into bears.

It's that simple.