California case holds the Federal Government is not liable for the acts of wildlife

Rubenstein, v. United States of America, 488 F.2d 1071; 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 6958

Hay, Utah, have you read this case?

In a very short and simple opinion the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the National Park Service (NPS) and the United States are not liable for injuries caused by attacks by wild animals.

The plaintiff had attempted to stay in a lodge at Yellowstone National Park. Unsuccessful in that, he decided to camp in a partially lighted area near the lodge. During the night he realized that his “tent had been invaded by a grizzly bear.” He suffered bites on both legs as he tried to get away.

The lower court dismissed his case and he appealed.

So? Summary of the case

The plaintiff sued under the theory that the attack by a bear was foreseeable by the government and not foreseeable by him; therefore because the government had failed to adequately warn him of the dangers, the government was liable. The lower court dismissed because his claim did not prove a negligent act on the part of the government.

The Federal Appellate Court agreed with the lower court and dismissed the case. The plaintiff had failed to make a claim under the Federal Tort Claim Act. When suing the Federal Government, the owner of the National Parks, the claim must fit within the requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

This means that the Federal Government, like many state and county governments cannot be sued except for specific instances that fit within exact parameters allowed by the law. Here, the Federal Tort Claim Act did not support, consequently allow, the suit by the plaintiff.

The court also found that the plaintiff

…had been fully warned, in writing, of the dangers he might encounter from the presence of animals, including bears, in the park. Furthermore, Rubenstein himself testified that he had read certain government brochures and that he recalled their warning that the park was populated by wild, dangerous, unpredictable animals.

The appellate court also found the cost to the Government of maintaining the parks would be increased if you could sue for injuries from animals. More likely the United States would be extremely reluctant to establish parks knowing they could be sued every time an animal attacked.

[There would be no parks in Minnesota, mosquito based lawsuits would overcome the legal system.]

So Now What?

This case differs from the recent Utah case were the judge awarded almost $2 million dollars for the death of a child from a bear because of the information the plaintiff had received in advance and because the plaintiff knew bears were wild, dangerous and unpredictable. In Utah, the child and his parents claimed they did not understand bears were dangerous or that there was a dangerous bear in the area. (Both seem to be stupid arguments to me. All bears are dangerous, that is why we don’t keep them as pets.)

The issue then becomes once you know there are dangerous wild animals around, you must warn people of the dangers. We cannot post a sign every place where wild animals interact with the human population. There would be signs on every street corner in Boulder and Golden Colorado warning of every animal. (Minnesota would be closed because of mosquitoes!)

We have to establish the knowledge in our population and in our courts the idea that wildlife is called that for a reason.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2011 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreation.Law@Gmail.com

Twitter: RecreationLaw
Facebook: Rec.Law.Now
Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com