Lawsuit filed over Albert Pike deaths

[SteveGabbard]

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2011 ... ike-flood/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the link.

[BMuu]

Suing will not bring them back...

Unless the forest service flooded the river themselfs I don't see why they should be blamed.

Suing will only insure that we will no longer have places to camp because there may be some unforseen danger lurking around the corner.

I take responsability for my own actions and choices.

[tomOzarkVideo]

The suit also claims that Loop D, which sustained the worst of the flooding where the campers died, should not have been built because it was in a flood plain, something the Forest Service knew.

OK so.... every NPS site on the buffalo needs to be closed?? Devils den too?? Hell.. I can't think of a place i've camped in the last 3 years that WASN'T on a flood plain. :myday"

I hate bottom feeding attorneys.. Go chase an ambulance

[fryingsquirrel]

I just lost another little chunk of what's left of my faith in humanity, reason, and common sense.
Some people will sue for absolutely no reason, or even worse, because of their own stupidity in the first place.
I think I'll go find a nice cave to hide in and become a hermit.
Jon Ellwood
Soon to be living in a cave.

[Shep]

I am disappointed to see people passing judgement on this with very little information. I am not saying the plaintiffs should win, but certainly they have a right to argue that the government may have some liability. The victims didn't build houses in a flood plain against advice, they used a campground built by the government that was still open for business. I know that we now have flood-plain warning signs at many campgrounds in the state, which I think is an excellent change. I look forward to seeing the results of this case and hope that it leads to a reasonable discussion of what safety measures can be taken.

Shep

[okieboater]

Go to the newspaper site and down load the pdf and related documents that have a lot of information.

http://www.arkansasonline.com/documents ... am-report/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is a lot more to this incident than I realized. I got halfway through the pdf and plan to go back and get thru the entire document. Lots of information.

I still question as to when are individuals responsible for their decisions
and
when are lawsuits the best solution.

[Cowper]

I'm glad I don't have to decide on this one, because I can see some very strong arguments on both sides, and a lot of conflicting information, all of course reported as "facts".

We do have a right to expect that in some places, we will receive fair warning about hazards that might not be obvious, especially to someone unfamiliar with the area. So if a skyscraper has a window out, or a manhole cover is open in the street, we expect a railing to be erected. We don't just leave an open hole and then say people should be smart enough to look where they are walking.

Getting to an example more applicable to an outdoor setting, we don't expect or want guardrails at every cliff. But at the Buffalo River, those new to the area have a sign that lets them know parking close to the Ponca bridge is not a good idea because it is in the flood plain. So is it really too much to expect that at another similarly developed place, specifically designated for overnight camping, there should be at least a similar fair warning? Do we really expect that folks should be able to drive into a campground (we're not talking about self-chosen gravel bar camping here), look around and examine the area for themselves, and decide whether a flat area is a "floodplain" or a safe "bench" above the floodplain? Do we expect them to do this at night, on their first visit? Or is it really quite reasonable for them to assume that the designated pull-in spot with the picnic table is a safe place to park?

There was at least one who recommended against developing Loop D as anything more than a primitive site because of the potential flooding hazard. That opinion was ignored, Loop D was developed, and if the “facts” as reported are correct, they didn’t even include any warning signs. But the original reports contained contradictory information about whether Loop D was in, or was above, the 100 year flood plain. When Boy scouts had to be rescued there after a flood in the mid-90’s, “park employees assured a scoutmaster that they planned to put in a flood alarm system. Such a system was never installed.” Not only was the warning system not installed, it was AFTER that incident that Loop D was developed and opened in 2004. Because of this tragedy, we now know that building Loop D may have been a mistake, but what was the consensus opinion then? Was it a case of flagrantly ignoring the advice of the expert because you didn’t like the answer; or a case where one strong-willed person insists “I’m right, you’re all wrong!”, so there can be no unanimous opinion and somebody has to make a decision on which way to go? The answer may seem obvious to some today, but it clearly wasn’t prior to 2004.

One report noted: “A hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey determined that the flood was “greater than a 500-year flood event,” according to the documents released by the Agriculture Department.” So how many times would the campground host or district ranger have had to chase people out of the campground, if they ran up there every time there was a flood watch or flood warning? How many of those flood warnings ended with the Little Mo being more than slightly out of the banks? Would we insist they evacuate the campground for every flood warning? Can we really hold them accountable for not realizing “tonight’s the night” for a 500 year event? The newspaper reports make much of the timeline on the Little Missouri gage at Langley, comparing it to the timeline of when the Weather Service in Little Rock was realizing the severity of the potential flooding and was sending out additional warnings, leaving the impression that there were hours to act, if only someone had. But as river people, we know that the Langley gage is far enough downstream, that the worst flooding at Albert Pike was probably occurring at almost exactly the same time, as when the Little Rock weather service was coming to realization of just how bad it might be and sending out more warnings. In short, it was already too late. (The official report Okieboater links to below shows a 911 call from the campground host 22 minutes BEFORE the weather service issued an updated warning specifically mentioning Albert Pike.)

Another report included statements, even quoting the District Ranger, using her words as “evidence” that she was essentially unconcerned and did nothing. But DeBo talked to the woman personally two days after the event. The ranger had been monitoring the weather up until about midnight, but based on what was being said at that time, believed the worst was over, and so she finally went to bed. She awoke later to the worsening conditions, and was calling her people, trying to get them into the area, but before they could get there creeks had flooded over the main access roads, and they lost hours while they tried to make their way to Albert Pike via back roads over higher ground. So the “facts” as reported by the paper, even those quoting some of what the District Ranger said, don’t agree with the “facts” that we have from talking to the same person ourselves.


Hindsight is so 20-20. Yeah, I think I’m really am glad I don’t have to decide.

I also ask, everybody please choose your words carefully. We weren’t there; we can only imagine how bad it was. I believe some of those who died, died as heroes because they were trying to save others. One story is about two women who lost their husbands because while the women clung to something for safety, their husbands left them to try to help others. Consider the feelings of the surviving friends and family members, and consider also the feelings of those who tried to do their jobs well, but are now “under fire” because of that 20-20 hindsight thing.

[BMuu]

What angers me about situations like this is using these places is a privilege. As a privilege it can be taken away at any time.

When people start suing something we get as a privilege then everyone else looses when we are no longer allowed to visit these places because they are in fear that they may have forgot to list every potential hazard.

I do feel bad for the people who lost their lifes but I don't want to see campgrounds closed because of it.

[SteveGabbard]

That incident report is a real eye opener.

Browse through it before you flame either side of the situation.

[cpresoz]

The report definitely is a read. I'm wondering now if a lawsuit is necessary to bring it all forward. The government's own findings may be the most damning evidence against itself. Possible omissions and negligence by individuals, even if they were actors for the government, shouldn't go unaddressed.

[GN YAKN]

It is an unfortunate fact of life that when an awful tragedy occurs sometimes it is necessary to file suit for a wrongful death claim in order to protect and provide for the survivors. There may even be the necessity of a lawsuit as part of an insurance settlement where the deceased had insurance that paid and as part of the settlement you have to allow the insurance company a chance to collect. I believe the term is subrogate or something like that.

Don't be so fast to condemn the folks that lost three members of their family. I'm sure they realize that a suit won't bring them back. And don't hate on the attorneys as they are representing their clients.

In order to get any compensation someone has to be liable. In order to prove liability there has to be proven negligence. In order to do any of that you have to file suit. Compensation for pain and suffering, you bet, compensation to help provide for earnings those three dead people might have provided for survivors, you bet.

This isn't a cup of hot coffee spilled in someone's lap...

[tomOzarkVideo]

I want to make sure that my reaction to the flood plain comment is not taken as an attack on the families that are suffering the loss.

A bad quote set me off..

[Cowper]

Understood Tom, thanks for clarifying.

The thing was, the families camping there probably didn't know it was in a flood plain, I don't think even the camp host knew. That detail had gotten lost in the earlier FS reports, and based on the report, it sounds like the campground was laid out partly on the basis of a single visit where someone judged that area to be somewhat above the flood plain.

Also, if this had been a "100 year" flood (hydrologists, please forgive my inaccurate use of the term), what would have been the impact? Maybe some water up to the car floorboard, a few kiddie toys washed away? But probably not campers being picked up and floated downstream.

I'm reminded of the movie title, "Perfect Storm". It took an amazing combination of contributing factors (and one really big one) to make this disaster.

[R_Corter]

Flooding can happen any place anytime, flood plain or not. Flooding on rivers is common, heavy sudden rain fall and a river = bad results. If people drowned on a roadway that's floods in a flash flood do they file a civil suit on the people that built it, I haven't heard of any. There are many many public and private campgrounds that are flooded every year on rivers in Arkansas. Albert Pike was an act of mother nature, it was a freak flash flood that may never happen again, and it could happen next week for all we know. When you camp on a river, in the mountains, flood plain or not you better pay attention to what is going on! I personally know people who have been trapped on Buffalo River. I do know for fact that Rush campground like many others on Buffalo have flooded, and it is a perfect example for entrapment during flash floods. At Rush there is a small spring fed creek that you cross to get to the camp area it has a low water bridge. The very first time I went there I noticed this, I realized then that if a flash flood hit there would be no way out. To survive one would have to go on foot up the mountain and wait it out. I just think this law suit is a bad bad thing for public campgrounds nation wide. If you camp on a river be ready for flash flooding anytime!!! Most of these people were from out of state and may of not known of the dangers of flash flooding in mountainous river region. Should there be warning signs? I think so. I don't know if there was any. I do know NPS places them at All locations on Buffalo warning of flooding. I do believe like said in an earlier post that one must be responsible for ones on actions. Could this happen again? Yes it can, as long as there are campgrounds on rivers especially in the mountains. It is up to people to educate themselves take some responsibility, be aware of your surroundings and if a situation arise improvise, adapt and overcome, to prevent these kind of disasters. Even then mother nature can overwhelm the prepared and and take lives should we look to blame others and file lawsuit when she does , I think not.

IMHO as terrible and tragic as this event was....Flood plain or not, warning signs or not, the fact is it was a freak act of mother nature and if people can sue over acts of mother nature when loved one are lost then this is just the beginning, negligence can almost always be found as long as there are attorneys willing to go the distance to prove it. I will be praying that this lawsuit does not have a negative effect on public recreation areas and campgrounds!

[paddledog]

I have included on of these in my "overnight" pack for canoe camping.
http://www.amazon.com/Leak-Frog-LF001-W ... B000WMSTUO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;