In a case that is stirring up the hunting community, a Montana woman alleges wildlife officials are liable for the fatal mauling of her husband by a grizzly bear.

Mary Hilston's husband should have been warned that an "aggressive" bear had recently "taken over" an elk carcass in the wildlife refuge where he went hunting in October 2001, a wrongful-death suit says. The same 400-pound animal attacked Timothy Hilston while he was gutting an elk he had shot.

"The Defendants knew that bears were becoming accustomed to gunshots and that bears were using the sound of gunshots as a 'dinner bell,'" Mary Hilston is claiming in federal court.

Courts have dismissed negligence cases involving bear attacks under a rule that protects government employees from liability for performing discretionary functions and duties. But liability has been imposed when officials failed to follow mandatory policies, for example in Knochel v. U.S., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (1998).

Mary Hilston's attorney, Floyd D. Corder (Corder & Allen, Great Falls, Mont.), believes park rangers at the Clearwater Wildlife Management Area violated their own policy by not warning hunters that a "nuisance bear" had been reported. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the state of Montana share responsibility for the refuge.

"If they had followed their own regulations, this would not have happened," Corder says. "At the minimum, they should have told [Timothy Hilston], 'You should not hunt by yourself.'"

In an editorial about the case, the Great Falls Tribune newspaper said hunters should "have the best possible information," but "that doesn't absolve [them] from going into the woods well-prepared to deal with the dangers that lurk there."

Corder insists there is "nothing Mr. Hilston could have done to protect himself. This isn't just your normal 'walk in the woods and protect yourself' type case."

For a list of published opinions in bear attack cases, click here.

10/11/04

Feedback