Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­

Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Father sues Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­zoo after alleged bear mauling of toddler

A toddler stuck her arm through a fence and had it attacked by a bear at the Greater Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­Zoo, according to a court claim
black-bear-cubs-vancouver-zoo
Bears at the Greater Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­Zoo, shown in a photo shared by the facility online in Sept. 2018. Greater Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­Zoo/Facebook

The father of a two-year-old who a black bear allegedly mauled at the Greater Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­Zoo has filed a lawsuit claiming negligence on the part of the zookeepers and property owners.

Richard Hanson filed the lawsuit on Dec. 19, 2022, in B.C. Supreme Court, for his daughter Sophia Hanson, who is now five years old.

The civil claim concerns an alleged “attack” by the bears on Sophia on Aug. 5, 2019, when the girl was a little over two-years-old.

The claim states Sophia “inserted her arm through an unguarded chain link fence located at the black bear exhibit (the “Fence”) and a group of black bears (the “Bears”) attacked and mauled the Plaintiff’s arm (the “Attack”).”

Sophia sustained “serious personal injuries, losses and damages,” including a fractured arm, partially amputated finger (left distal), injury to the arm and hand, loss of muscle tissue, lacerations, scarring and psychological injury, the claim states.

General and special damages are being sought by the Hansons, such as for pain and suffering, loss of prospective earnings, loss of income earning capacity, cost of past and future care, lost wages and medications.

The listed defendants are the Greater Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­Zoo Ltd. and K-Bros Developments Corp., the latter of which is the registered land owner for the zoo in Aldergrove, about 70 kilometres east of Vancouver. The zoo's website presently shows it has three black bears on display. The bears are rescues from Alaska, having lost their mother in a "human-wildlife conflict."

The Hansons rely on the Occupiers Liability Act and Negligence Act and argue the defendants owed a duty of care to them but failed in this respect.

“At all material times, the Fence and/or Bears constituted a hazard to invitees accessing the Premises” and the bears “did have a propensity to cause harm to persons.”

Furthermore, the defendants “failed to install a proper barrier between the Bears and persons properly using the Premises.”

The defendants have not yet filed a response to the claim, and none of the claims have been proven in court.

The Hansons are represented by lawyer Marc Kazimirski of KazLaw Injury Lawyers.

[email protected]