0007 said:
Turned around and went back up the mountain to call the wife instead.
Wise move. Some military contractors working at an isolated Arctic station on the slope in the '90's actually got attacked while they were inside their station. The bear walked up on a snow back and smashed in their main window, waltzing in with every intention of eating them. It badly mauled a man and was only stopped when one contractor brought out his shotgun and killed it. IIRC, that fellow was promptly termintated for violating DOD restrictions against having firearms.
As a sidenote to that, the contractor who was mauled sued the feds under the FTCA. His case was dismissed by revived on appeal in Chaffin v. U.S., 176 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 1999)
I like this bit:
"Another co-worker eventually killed the bear with a shotgun, which was hidden in his bedroom and not readily accessible because it was possessed in contravention of the firearm policy dictated by Lockheed Martin's contract with the Air Force. Chaffin suffered grave, permanent, and disfiguring injuries due to the attack."
...
"Finally, Chaffin contends that the government's insistence on prohibiting firearms at the site creates an issue of fact as to the government's liability under Restatement § 410, which authorizes employer liability where the employer has given negligent instructions to an independent contractor, see Moloso, 644 P.2d at 217. Restatement § 410 provides:
The employer of an independent contractor is subject to the same liability for physical harm caused by an act or omission committed by the contractor pursuant to orders or directions negligently given by the employer, as though the act or omission were that of the employer himself.
The district court correctly observed that the government never gave the contractor any specific directions about bear safety. However, the record read in the light most favorable to Chaffin leaves unresolved questions about the relationship between the government as landowner and the contractor as Chaffin's employer.
In citing the Restatement, we express no opinion as to whether any of the exceptions to the FTCA's waiver of government immunity may preclude a cause of action for negligence against the United States, particularly with respect to the ban on firearms."
Thus, the government's insistance that firearms be banned in the contract was an issue of fact for the jury--though the liberal 9th circuit made it clear with that last quip that if they were to examine it in the FTCA context they might decide the government was immune even if negligent.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting precedent for cases where private employers (with no FTCA and no sovereign immunity) ban firearms.