OT: Olympic National Park sued for goat attack

For all you folks that have spent time photographing the goats on Mt Evans, check this out. Not quite the same as spilling McD's coffee in your lap but on a similar bent.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127093963.html

But wait! There's more....

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/125220079.html

370 pounds??? I didn't realize they were that heavy. I would've guesstimated the goats on Evans to be no more than 200#, and more likely, much less.

While it is true some people file ridiculous lawsuits with the intent of enriching themselves, it's also true some people do so in the midst of grief over the loss of a loved one. At such times, most people's powers of reasoning are strained. Unlike the case involving a coffee stained article of clothing, someone died as a prelude to this lawsuit. Since none of us has all the facts of the case, reserving judgment would, at least, be the compassionate thing to do.

Wouldn't this also make the park service responsible for a person killed by a bear, moose elk, or heck even lightning? I think people need to take responsibility for their own safety when they are in the wild -- can you imagine someone in Yellowstone walking up to a Buffalo and then filing a lawsuit when it gores him? This lawsuit is going to end up making everyone sign a waiver when they pay at the gate, just watch. Plus -- its not like the park service just let the goat roam free, they did execute the offender.

The thing that caught my attention and spurred me to share this one is the lawsuit. I agree with Howard that people sometimes do strange things when they are grieving but in this case by sueing the Park Services for "negligence" it seems to me that they are implying that the Park Service has control of the goats which is crazy talk. I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on television but that's what I read into it.

Granted, it's a terrible tragedy and, for the most part, one that could conceiveably happen to any of us that frequent the wild places. But negligence? Hmmmmmm.

This might be an interesting one for CAZ to weigh in on.

I can see it now. New Mantra-
"Carry it in, carry it out" extends to liquids.

I have to comment on the coffee spilling idiom we use. I laughed lightly at these types of cases citing oh another coffee spilling case until, yes a lawyer friend told me the details of the Liebeck vs McDees case.

Some of you may very well be aware of those details . For those of you that may not know the details, check it out here. There are plenty of side links and it jives well with other accounts I've read. I think you'll find the details fascinating...after reading them it definitely struck me as not a frivolous case.

Anyhow it changed my mind on using that phrase.

Point taken, Art. Thanks for the link.

Well, Bill, I'd be happy to comment on this one. ;-) First, I'll second Art's suggestion on getting the actual facts of the McDonald's case (the car wasn't moving, the old lady was a passenger, and McDonald's intentionally ignored safety recommendations serving coffee they knew was too hot to drink and could burn through all three layers of your skin in as little as just 2 seconds - and more).

Second, my first thought relates to Todd's comment - "Holy shit! Those things are nearly 400 pounds?!"

Third, I think that based on the few facts reported, this case is probably a loser but does not fit into the category of "frivolous, groundless, and vexatious". Although I think the park shares in the liability here for lousy advice on how to deal with a pissed off goat, the gored guy is more liable than the park. My opinion is based on the few facts revealed in the articles and my firm belief that by entering into the natural world you are assuming the risk of nature messing you up pretty good.

Just my dos centavos,

CAZ

Thanks CAZ and Art and all who have replied. I've educated myself on the McD's situation and will purge that reference from my lexicon. As my Daddy used to tell me, "Stupidity is terminal but Ignorance can be cured." I've hopefully cured myself regarding that particular case.

With regards to the goat situation my whole purpose in posting was to make us all a little more aware of some of the hazards we face when we head out to look for images. Not trying to make anyone paranoid, just a reminder that when we are out in the Natural World we are NOT at the top of the food chain and not even an Apex predator. I'd hate to read something like this about one of my RMNP pals.

Had a similar incident occur at Glacier. There were 3 of us hiking when a goat came down the trail toward us. He stopped in the middle of the trail and just stood there. After a few shots we tried to go around him and he blocked our way. No matter what side we tried to go around he would block us. We did have the sense to back off and wait him out. After about 15 minutes he tired of the game and left. When in nature you never know what will occur next. I always carry bear spray and wouldn't hesitate to use it no matter what was charging me. I've only had to use it once but will worth the $48.

Caz said, "by entering into the natural world you are assuming the risk of nature messing you up pretty good."

Ah, but here's the question: Knowing very well that it solicits all kinds of visitors, many of whom have little or no appreciation for the potential dangers of nature (when did you ever see a TV show telling you about the dangers of mountain goats?), doesn't the NPS have a responsibility to educate, even warn, the uninformed of the not-so-well known dangers in the wild?

Hey Howard - that's why I believe that the park shares in the liability. The park in this case actually DID provide a warning and a method of addressing that particular circumstance. The problem was that the guy followed the park's advice but it didn't work.