Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The U.S. government said an Idaho family is to blame for any injuries it alleges a boy received after he was doused with cyanide by a predator-killing trap that a federal worker mistakenly placed near their home.
Any injuries were caused by the negligence of the parents and child, the U.S. Department of Justice said in documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court, and asked for the family's lawsuit to be dismissed.
Quote:
Mark and Theresa Mansfield of Pocatello sued in June seeking more than $75,000 in damages and more than $75,000 for pain and suffering.
They say their son, Canyon Mansfield, was playing with his dog in March 2017 when the then-14-year-old triggered the trap that the U.S. Department of Agriculture placed to kill coyotes. The dog died, and the teen still has headaches from the poison, the lawsuit said.
Quote:
The traps drew increased scrutiny after The Associated Press reported that the teen was injured months after the government decided to stop using the devices on federal lands in Idaho.
The lawsuit contends that an Agriculture Department worker acknowledged to law enforcement officials placing the trap in error on land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The court document filed by the Justice Department does not acknowledge such an error.
This happened about 60 miles away from where I live, and I've seen the traps.
They're classic booby traps, designed to bait and kill. There must be thousands of them all over the west, rusting away slowly, steadily becoming closer to releasing their load of cyanide at the slightest touch.
They were a bad idea from the first, because it's so easy for them to miss their intended target. They're coyote killers, but coyotes cover such big territory that they're unlikely to come through the area of the trap twice the same way. Since people natrually do things the easiest for them, the trap locations aren't often the best spots for killing a coyote.
But they are the spots that are going to be the easiest for a hiker with a dog or a horse to come across those traps. The agencies that put them out keep maps of their placement, but the maps only last for as long as there's storage for them before they're tossed out, and many of the traps were never mapped.
Like old land mines are more dangerous to move than new land mines, so it is with these things. No game ranger would be happy sent out to recover old booby traps. It's much easier and safer to come back and say they couldn't be found.
Sometimes, that report would be true, as they're only about as big as a Sterno can with the lid halfway off. After a year or two, they would look like just another old tin can to a lot of folks who have never seen one before.
Back in the day, killing coyotes was done with a dead sheep or goat, opened up and poisoned, then flagged with caution stakes. That didn't work any better, but at least it was much safer for humans and their animals.
Even when you have a legit case of suing a branch/dept. of the federal government because you meet the legal requirements to do so, actually suing them is hard because of immunity laws and possible legal loopholes. In other words, it could be akin to them saying:
Quote:
Yes, that incident matches the spirit/letter of the constitutional requirements necessary to sue us. As this action violated such spirit/letter of the constitution, as well as your safety and possible rights, the only proper way to address this is by us getting sued or an employee of this branch getting jailed or an employee of this branch getting removed from office. However, because we are in charge of making the laws and implementing them, none of those actions will be permitted in this case.
In the above situation, be it a lawyer or non-lawyer, it would a rare situation where the following statement is said and is true in both factual and opinion standpoints:
Quote:
Yes, that incident matches the spirit/letter of the constitutional requirements necessary to sue us. As this action violated such spirit/letter of the constitution, as well as your safety and possible rights, the only proper way to address this is by you getting sued or an employee of this branch getting jailed or an employee of this branch getting removed from office. From both practical and spirit/letter of the law standpoints, there is not loophole or immunity that is shielding you from this. The previously mentioned consequences will be carried out.
Last edited by Eumaois; 08-27-2018 at 01:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
