Last October, 63-year-old Bob Boardman was gored to death in front of family and friends by a 350-pound mountain goat in the Olympic National Park. Yesterday, John Messina, an attorney representing Boardman’s family, announced that he’d filed $10 million in wrongful death lawsuits against the park on behalf of the family of the Port Angeles hiker.
Which brings us to today, with Messina defending the $10 million in claims. Messina argues that the park received complaints about the temperamental goat for four years and had a responsibility to remove it before it followed and fatally gored Boardman:
“A particularly dangerous animal was not removed from the park… I mean, three strikes and you’re out, and this animal had a lot more than three strikes. Even according to the park’s policies, it should have been removed.”
Which brings me to this question:
1. The woods is not baseball. Three strikes and you’re still in the woods.
2. The state has no obligation to potty train the wildlife.
Sounds like a case where there’s some culpability by the park, but there should be significant shared risk. I would think by the facts in this article, assuming they’re true, that the family should get something, but $10M seems excessive at first glance. In short, none of the poll options fit my opinion.
If the park service has an obligation to remove all the known dangerous animals from the national parks, then no more grizzlies, alligators, venomous snakes, etc.
If the lawyer is right and the Park was violating its own policy, then seems like the family has a case. But we have a system here in America for formally distinguishing frivolous from non-frivolous lawsuits and its called “The Courts”.
poison oak… mosquitoes… bees… tripping hazards… sunburn…
But I thought Sloggers didn’t believe in personal responsibility?
I think anyone who goes into the wilderness is accepting some risk. On the other hand, the Park Service does have a responsibility to manage wildlife, particularly invasive wildlife, to the best of its ability. It looks like it didn’t in this case, ignoring a safety problem that was repeatedly brought to their attention and doing very little to control the goat population (probably just to save money because of worries that some Republican would demonize the agency for its goat removal program). So I guess I’d like to see them accept or be forced to take some culpability–just not $10 million worth. The person best able to make this determination is a judge who knows the law and can weigh the available evidence. So hopefully this goes to trial.
Was there a “watch out for angry goat” sign? The park’s responsibility is to try to keep the people away from the dangerous things, not the other way around.
The mountain goats are not native to the Olympics – they were introduced for the benefit of hunters before the area became a national park and are basically an invasive species that should have been removed in any event.
If the NPS was indeed aware that this particular specimen was unusually aggressive, that’s all the more reason that action should have been taken.
Were there any warning signs in the area that this animal was known to frequent? I’ve been hiking in Olympic NP and seen signs warning hikers to avoid specific areas where elk are known to be potentially aggressive due to recently having given birth – any similar warnings here?
I have to wonder if the poll results would be different if he’d been mauled to death by a documented-ly aggressive bear.
The issue wasn’t that the goat was dangerous – plenty of animals in the park are capable of killing/maiming humans. The issue was that the goat had a history of acting aggressively toward humans. It’s part of the Park Service’s job to minimize the risk to hikers from aggressive wildlife, either by selectively closing trails/campgrounds or by removing the aggressive wildlife. In that regard, it seems like the Park Service acted negligently.
As for the $10 million, I’m not sure how exactly you go about quantifying the value of this guy’s life, but I’m pretty sure it was worth more than the goat’s.
I agree, the state has no obligation in making a public park or trail safe for visitor who pay to use it. Just like the city has no obligations in making public streets safe for cyclists. So a guy who keeps going to the park, gets gored to death by a 370 lbs mega goat, well its his own fault for enjoying the act of hiking. Just how a cyclist who doesnt wear a helmet, basically deserves to be clocked or killed by an SUV. Laws of nature at work.
I ended up literally 15 feet from a very large bear last week in the Olympic National Forest… For the record, not because I’m one of those stupid people who think they can walk right up to wild animals but because it was pitch black out and he wandered into our camp unbeknownst to me until my headlamp flashed across him… Aaaaanyway… Had he mauled the shit out of me I would seriously hope that my family wouldn’t be stupid enough to file a lawsuit against the park. I voluntarily chose to hike 13+ into the wilderness into an area known for it’s bear/mountain goat/elk/deer/etc populations and that’s the risk you run when you do that. When you knowingly put yourself in a risky situation you do not deserve some kind of reimbursement when you get injured, nor does your family.
The goat continually stalking people through the woods should have been a pretty good hint for people to stop going into those woods. Don’t make the animal suffer because people are selfish and stupid.
You people won’t be happy until goats are in the same classrooms with our kids. Would you let a goat marry your daughter?
Ten mil seems excessive. However, the “invasive species” point seems important to me. That fact takes this case beyond normal, place-specific risk.
Team Goat!
I love how the stranger, and arguably *progressive* news rag is ignoring the fact that if this story was about shooting goats from helicopters it would be some crazed Sarah Palin level bloodlust.
you could argue any technicality about them needing to kill a dangerous goat, or you could remind yourself that dude knew that there were dangerous goats, cause he called it in.
AND CHOSE TO GO ANYWAY.
case closed
Oh, who cares? Apart from the guy’s family, obviously. He got too close to a large, dangerous animal. He paid for it. And really, it’s a more entertaining way to die than most people get.
You don’t need goddamn signs in the woods to warn people there are dangerous animals there. Or at least you shouldn’t. And if you’re too stupid to figure that out on your own, Darwin is more than happy to help you out.
Ah, @7. I hadn’t read that far down. They’re a non-native, invasive species introduced in the 1920s for hunting before it was a park. Elsewhere, I see there have been multiple rounds of population control over the years. Plenty of precedent for removing a dangerous individual. The lawsuit makes a little more sense. No opinion about the amount.
10 million is what they’re ASKING. they’ll settle for less (note: that’s how it’s done, Barack). and they will get something – the NPS knew they had an agressive, dangerous wild animal guarding a territory on one of the park’s most popular trails at its most popular tourist area.
they could have tranqed and transported him to the middle of the park, or if that was too $, just fucking shot the invasive old billy and mounted him in the visitor center. its not like it would be hard to find a hunter willing to do the job.
@Queen of Sleaze: Imagine if the park service had received multiple reports of bear sightings at the campground in the week leading up to your encounter, yet they decided to leave the campground open anyway. Would the park have any responsibility then?
National parks != wilderness. Visitors have a right to expect the park service will do everything they can to ensure their safety. Yes, accidents happen, but sometimes they’re preventable – and if the park doesn’t do anything to prevent it, then they become liable.
I am unwilling to have government agencies be responsible for making every part of the land and sea safe for people’s personal pleasure. You go into the few remaining wild lands left in the US, you accept the risks therein. Risks which include death. The wilderness is not a themepark. “Three strikes?” Animals cannot commit crimes.
I voted for option 4 … Class Riots!
@23: hurricane ridge is far from “wild”. it’s a national PARK. there’s a ski resort there. it has 1000s of gapers traipsing about the trails in flip flops and heels every day of the summer. this wasn’t about removing every bit of danger – it was a known threat by an ornery old billy. i know people who’d been chased by that very goat.
and chimps commit crimes regularly. they’re assholes.
This was not a grizzly bear, it was a goat, and the odds of being gored to death by a fucking goat during a hike in a park are about 1 in 10,000,000.
This was a freak accident. No way the park is liable.
@22 – No, the Park Service would not have any responsibility. There are bear sightings there literally every day. We saw three bears in the vicinity of the camping area just on our first day (I don’t I would actually call it a campground as you can’t pull an RV in or drive your car up to it). It’s part of the reason people go to that location and it’s part of the reason people do a 13 mile hike to get there. Some people enjoy getting out and seeing nature in as close to a wild state as we probably can in this area. Some people happily take the risks that are associated with doing that. Those risks include things like slipping and falling into the river, breaking your leg crossing a rock slide, twisting an ankle on a tree root, and however unlikely – being gored by a bull elk, mauled by a bear, or rammed by a mountain goat. None of those things are, imho, the parks responsibility. Especially when there are abundant pamphlets, papers, and signs warning you of suck dangers and advising you on how to be safe in the wilderness.
Slight correction on those odds – there were 2,800,000 visitors to the Olympic National Park in 2010 alone, so at least 50,000,000 since the park was created. Only one of those visitors died of a goat attack. That’s a 1 in 50,000,000 risk of death by goat.
If that kind of risk constitutes negligence, than the terrorists have won.
His name was Inigoat Montoya, and he was seeking revenge against those who killed his father when he was just a… kid.
NEWS FLASH: DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS INHABIT WILDERNESS AREAS – HUMANS SHOCKED BY THEIR COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR WHICH SPECIES IS SUPPOSED TO BE ON TOP OF THE FOOD-CHAIN. MORE AT 11…
You know what else could be considered an invasive species in North America?
i dunno, i think (legally, by park’s own standards) the park considers itself responsible for removing demonstrable dangerous animals. NPS does so all the time – bears, pumas, wolves etc. who attack or get too cozy with humans. they’ll even take out coyotes.
if a 350 lb goat with two spears on its head becomes a known hazard, why didn’t they do something about it?
the argument that an attack from a goat is improbable doesn’t quite convince me. i grew up going to parks where there were signs everywhere saying that if you fed DEER you were putting yourself in danger of a goring or kicking death.
i dunno. i think the 10 mil is overkill, and that the park service shouldn’t have to protect us all from all of the wildness that we seek out, but the suing party has a point. sorta.
I bet nobody’s ever gonna fuck with a wild goat again.
It’s the wilderness…it’s nature. There are many, many things in it that can kill you. Want to lower your risk from harm by wild things in nature? Stay home.
Perhaps, they should sue God for making the mean goat?
I really don’t have any sympathy for them. It’s sad their family member died, but suing a park for $10m isn’t about righting a wrong…it’s about trying to make a buck.
“2. The state has no obligation to potty train the wildlife.”
Yep. They SHOULD monitor and take care of them, however they should not be held negligent for the actions of the animals under their care.
What was the amount of Mr. Boardman’s life insurance policy?
Is the insurer refusing to pay, citing force majeure?
Is Allstate forcing the Boardman family to sue before the benefit will be paid?
Follow the money.
I will go with option D: I don’t know, but I think it’s totally fair to let a court consider the merits of the case. I hate the armchair quarterbacking people love to do on this stuff. Just because you read an article doesn’t mean you have all the answers.
@37 Maybe, but I want to go to parks in the future and be able to see animals in the wild even if they are feral goats and stuff like this will make that impossible.
Not only was this goat mauling sick and wrong, but it occurred under President Obama’s watch. He will always be remembered as the Killer Goat President.
@29 for the Princess Bride win!
Well played.
@38 – the more likely outcome would be changes in written policy. The park service might make clear that it only eliminates animals that have already attacked a human. Who knows – maybe that already is the policy. I doubt the case will have merit, but I just wish we’d all let the justice system do it’s thing instead of pre-judging the case, the lawyer, the family. It’s definitely not a frivolous case – the animal had a history and someone died.
My uncle worked at Olympic for decades. The rangers had been wanting to shoot the goat for years, and started the paperwork to do so — it was an invasive species, AND it was crazy. It didn’t act like a normal goat. It was dangerous. Then, according to my uncle, a local politician made the goat his cause, and told the park they weren’t allowed to shoot it.
Then the goat killed this guy, whom everyone knew and loved in the community. My uncle, a normally calm and reserved fellow, can barely speak when the subject comes up, he’s so angry. The guy in question was not stupid. He did not taunt the goat. He did not underestimate wildlife. The goat was a mad goat that the rangers had been wanting to get rid of for years before it killed somebody.
@31 – Yeah, I was just about to say something like that. 😀
@42 – so if there’s evidence that the rangers have started said paperwork and tried to do their job, then there’s no negligence case to build on in court.
@22,
According to your logic, just about every campground would be permanently closed. I’ve camped in Tahoe, a very short jaunt from civilization, and still saw a bear traipsing through the campground at night. Bears are drawn to humans because humans = hot dogs and chocolate bars.
These kinds of judgments usually rely on the victim’s projected earnings through the rest of his life. Since this guy was near retirement age, $10 million would be laughed out of court, which is why the family will take a much smaller settlement.
@37: “I will go with option D: I don’t know, but I think it’s totally fair to let a court consider the merits of the case. I hate the armchair quarterbacking people love to do on this stuff. Just because you read an article doesn’t mean you have all the answers.”
Uh, the phrase “court of public opinion” exists for a reason. Nobody’s conflating opinion with law, here.
@44 — I agree. I wasn’t really trying to argue any particular case — sue the park, don’t sue the park, whatever — as much as to say that yes, the goat needed to be put down. And the rangers, who are pretty fierce defenders of wildlife themselves, thought so too. I’m not sure whether the paperwork to shoot the goat was kiboshed at the higher levels of park management because of political pressure, or if it was outright stopped by a politician. I guess what I’m saying is that whoever put a hold on the paperwork should be liable and rangers should be allowed to do their jobs.
@31 Hitler?
42 seems to have the backstory that this thread needed. thanks 42.
@45,
Most of my backpacking experience is in Glacier, which has grizzlies in addition to smaller and less aggressive black bears. In Glacier, if a grizzly is sighted near a campground, the park service closes it until the bear loses interest and goes elsewhere. To know that a grizzly has become interested in a campground but leave it open to backpackers anyway would be negligent.
It sounds like the rangers at Olympic knew that there was an aggressive animal that hung around one of the park’s trails, but they didn’t close the trail or remove the animal. Whether it’s the park’s fault or someone else’s, it sounds like negligence to me.