University sued for actions of Participant on an Outdoor Trip for $5M

Several news sources are reporting a lawsuit by the parents of a deceased 13 year old boy suing the Idaho State University over his death. See Parents file tort claim in wake of son’s death and
Parents seeking $5M. The young boy died after being hit by a personal water craft (PWC) on American Falls Reservoir this past July, 2008. The PWC was being driving by a member of the university’s Cooperative Wilderness Handicapped Outdoor Group, commonly known as CW Hog’s.


CW Hog’s is recognized nationally for its handicapped outdoor program. It was one of the first, if not the first to take disabled people outdoors. And not just into the woods, but rappelling off cliffs, climbing, rafting, any activity that anyone else can do in the woods. Founded in 1981 CW Hog’s has a long and impressive history. The name CW Hog’s comes from their name Cooperative Wilderness Handicapped Outdoor Group

The reports state the boy was killed when he was hit by a PWC driven by a member of CW Hog’s on a CW Hog’s outing. What seems to be aggravating the situation is the driver was fined $57.00 for his actions that caused the death of the boy.

Here again the confusing issue is the leap from the driver of the PWC to the university as defendant in the lawsuit. If the University is supposed to control its participants, who are over the age of 18; are the disabled really able bodied and functional on their own? Or is the university the deep pocket who may have the money to buy this case off.

A $57.00 fine would make anyone angry if the actions that justified the fine caused the death of a loved one. However the actions of the state in not fulfilling the desires of the family cannot be taken out on the university.

This is a very sad case. I feel for the parents, but I don’t see why and how the university should be held liable for the actions, negligent or not, of a participant in its program. Participants are over the age of 18. The university was not driving the PWC. The only thing left in my mind is does the university have a duty to control the actions of its handicapped participants? There is no duty to control able bodied participants.

The very idea that the university must control it’s disabled participants will and should bring every disabled advocate out of the “woods.” How can we say that a disabled person should be fully integrated into society with all the rights and freedoms they have. Or is this lawsuit going to attempt to say that as a disabled adult, you must be controlled by the university?