$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_hiker_fined

Man, I'm never going to call for help....Like in the old days I'm just gonna crawl out.

Unless they are able to pass the liability onto his parents, the state will likely never see a dime from this. I'm not sure if they'd consider the commencement of the SAR operations an implied agreement/contract, but as a minor, he cannot legally enter into it (contract).

Back in 2003 an 18 yo "Eagle Scout" Mark Amico was lost on Monadnock for 2 nights in HEAVY cold October rain, although he was not behaving like a scout when he got seperated and lost from his college buddies.

F&G levied a (I think it was) $10 thousand fine towards his rescue, but the fine was not formally charged as a donation for S&R was paid to the NH Outdoor Council. It was quite apparent that his dad had to pay this and hopefully he was able to recoup it from his son in some way.

rocket21 said:

Unless they are able to pass the liability onto his parents, the state will likely never see a dime from this. I'm not sure if they'd consider the commencement of the SAR operations an implied agreement/contract, but as a minor, he cannot legally enter into it (contract).

Click to expand...

It's not based on contract law. F&G has explicit statutory authority to recover costs for negligent conduct that causes SAR resources to be used by the state. He's not immune to a judgment under the criminal statutes as a 17 year old if he commits a crime, and he's not immune to a judgment on this basis either. Just as in the case of a 16 year old kid who drives negligently -- he's personally liable under common law for harm resulting from that negligence.

He may not have a lot of assets at the time (assuming there's no insurance available), but the amount can be recovered from him when he does. The injured party has 20 years in NH to collect on a judgment.

How does it cost the state $ to rescue somebody? The state employees are salaried. They get paid either way. Volunteers are well, volunteers. If these people were not engaged in an actual rescue they would be training or using state resources through their normal daily activity. Overtime and “dangerous” work conditions are weak arguments. Just like any other job I am sure there is plenty of routine overtime, and if someone feels there work is dangerous, then they have chosen the wrong profession.
Moral of the story is don’t call these guys for help, call someone who cares.

tombaisley said:

How does it cost the state $ to rescue somebody? The state employees are salaried. They get paid either way. Volunteers are well, volunteers. If these people were not engaged in an actual rescue they would be training or using state resources through their normal daily activity. Overtime and “dangerous” work conditions are weak arguments. Just like any other job I am sure there is plenty of routine overtime, and if someone feels there work is dangerous, then they have chosen the wrong profession.
Moral of the story is don’t call these guys for help, call someone who cares.

Click to expand...

Moral of the story is, know the facts first. F&G officers have many other duties as well. When they are responding to SAR missions, the other duties have to be performed regardless. So the state has to staff with enough personnel to cover those duties plus SAR, it has to pay overtime, it has to pay for helicopter operations, etc.

And yeah, I'm pissed off to hear them characterized as someone who doesn't care. When you've actually worked alongside these folks and you know how poorly compensated they are for what they do, do come back and enlighten us again.

Is this a fine as in punitive for a civil infraction? Or is it a bill to recoup costs? I thought the negligence law was for recouping costs, not for punitive amounts. The stories/headlines say "fine".

Tim

I would be interested to know what the facts are. So things got busy for the F&G officers, how much overtime? After all they are poorly compensated. How much overtime is paid out on a slow week? The helicopter costs are fixed. If they are not flying a mission, they fly training to maintain readiness.
The state uses tax dollars to put together people and materials to provide a service. If the state is unwilling to provide that service, the entire program should be shut down and save the tax payer a lot of money

bikehikeskifish said:

Is this a fine as in punitive for a civil infraction? Or is it a bill to recoup costs? I thought the negligence law was for recouping costs, not for punitive amounts. The stories/headlines say "fine".

Tim

Click to expand...

It's not a fine, it's recoupment under an authorizing statute. The headline writers have it wrong.

Did they itemize the actual costs? Seems like an awfully round number to me. Not that I am against recouping costs. I'm not sure this specific case rose to the negligence standard. I seem to remember writing, when the statue was adopted, that it all depends on who the "reasonable person" is. I believe it is all debated to death in this thread.

For example, many of the commenters on the web site pages (whom we roll our eyes at) are vigorously opposed to hiking solo, whereas many of us commonly do so (myself included) and if put on the stand would not think that negligent. Here is the relevant piece:

Mason was negligent in continuing up the mountain with an injury and veering off the marked path, Acerno said. Negligence, he said, is based on judging what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.

"When I twist my ankle, I turn around and come down. He kept going up," Acerno said.

Back in that previous discussion I wondered exactly what the standard(s) were that would be applied and now I am specifically interested in the decision process of this case. I often continue after some minor injury/cut/abrasion/ankle roll. Veering off the path ... means that bushwhacking is negligent?

Tim

bikehikeskifish said:

Back in that previous discussion I wondered exactly what the standard(s) were that would be applied and now I am specifically interested in the decision process of this case. I often continue after some minor injury/cut/abrasion/ankle roll. Veering off the path ... means that bushwhacking is negligent?

Click to expand...

Oh relax -- I think if you wanted to expend the time and energy to assert that hiking along and off trail is not negligent, it would not be that hard to do. Not that I know anything about law, of course. I'm just making this up. But here's a sample list of questions that seem as though they would raise serious questions about the issue:

-How many organizations in NH regularly ask employees to be out in the woods, alone and sometimes off trail? AMC? RMC? F+G Employees, including officers, biologists, etc? Foresters? USFS employees?
-And in neighboring states with similar weather and terrain?
-Do any of these people receive special training to "avoid accidents" in the woods?
-In what circumstances are they specifically required to stop their job duties because of unsafe conditions?
-Do these people take substantially different safety measures than you did?
-Are these employers negligent?
-Don't we often hold employers to a higher standard of safety than we would individuals making free choices?
-Would other hikers of similar training and experience consider your behavior unreasonable and negligent?
-Are you still, fundamentally, allowed to "walk alone" in the woods in NH?
-Are the many others who walk alone in the woods, for hunting, fishing, hiking, etc, and who never have accidents, are they potentially engaging in negligent behavior?
-Does "walking alone" in the woods only become negligent once you are injured?
And for rhetorical flourish:
-Many reasonable people hold great respect for the experiences and insight people like John Muir, Henry Thoreau, and Aldo Leopold gained from being alone in the woods. Is it now unreasonable and negligent to undertake similar experiences?


Then I would probably offer that I have great respect and admiration for the people who rescued me, and offer to make a generous donation to those organizations.

sardog1 said:

Just as in the case of a 16 year old kid who drives negligently -- he's personally liable under common law for harm resulting from that negligence.

He may not have a lot of assets at the time (assuming there's no insurance available), but the amount can be recovered from him when he does. The injured party has 20 years in NH to collect on a judgment.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the state can be consiered an injured party in this case.

I find it very unlikely that they'll be able to recover $25,000 from a 17 year old who got in over his head hiking.

tombaisley said:

The state uses tax dollars to put together people and materials to provide a service. I

Click to expand...

NHFG is almost completely funded by the purchase of hunting/fishing/trapping licenses and ORV registrations. Almost no tax dollars go into paying salaries, purchasing equipment or covering infrastructure costs.

I can't speak to how helicopters are paid for b/c NHFG does not own one so I assume some other agency provided support. Perhaps tax dollars go toward that.

VT

I'm not a fan of rescue recoupment laws. But putting aside the larger debate, does it make sense to apply these laws to minors? The rationale for recoupment is that hikers will behave more responsibly if they know they might bear the cost of a rescue. The brains of adolescents are not fully developed. Minors (especially boys) engage in reckless behavior because they often fail to perceive the possible consequences of their actions. We have a separate system of juvenile justice, in part, because it is widely recognized that minors are not deterred by laws in the same way as adults.

Imposing such a large fine is not likely to deter other minors from engaging in irresponsible conduct in the mountains. What it might deter, or at least delay, is a phone call from a parent when a minor child is overdue. In other words, applying the law under these circumstances might only serve to deter responsible conduct in the future.

tombaisley said:

I would be interested to know what the facts are. So things got busy for the F&G officers, how much overtime? After all they are poorly compensated. How much overtime is paid out on a slow week? The helicopter costs are fixed. If they are not flying a mission, they fly training to maintain readiness.
The state uses tax dollars to put together people and materials to provide a service. If the state is unwilling to provide that service, the entire program should be shut down and save the tax payer a lot of money

Click to expand...

Here are facts for you. There are less than a dozen conservation officers charged with handling the responsibilities of policing hunters, fisherman, fish stocking duties, patroling OHRV and 4 wheel trails all on top of also being responsible for SAR missions. You think they don't care? Tell that to the CO who just spent 8 hours at a fish stocking site, or on poaching patrol, finally gets to the end of his shift and then gets a call "Hiker Missing!" and spend another dozen hours doing that. All for poor pay. As for recouping costs here are more facts for you. one thing it is the STATE recouping the costs, but in fact the Fish and Game is a self funded organization paid for by fishing, hunting and similar licenses. The money directly spent by Fish and Game normally does not get refunded to them. I am not even sure if the $25,000 they try and get from this kid would actually go back to the F&G department.

So before you start making false generalizing statements these people "Don't care" take the time to do your research.

Brian

tombaisley said:

Moral of the story is don’t call these guys for help, call someone who cares.

Click to expand...

Tom, if you break your leg 5 miles from the trail head, I'm currious as to who you would call? If you fell and knocked yourself out on a rock, would you be concerned about who came to your rescue and carried you out?
I'm serious about these questions, and interested in your answers.

I'm surprised that they are fining him.
I didn't follow the thread about him getting lost, but on this thread he just seems like a young fellow who got hurt and made a mistake or two.
Did a heck of a lot better than I would have at that age (and for many years after that age)

If they said he was a little twerp that was stoned out of his gourd or drunk or something then I could probably understand it (as I could better relate it to how I might have been at that age)

Am I missing something other than he made some honest mistakes...?

I can both sides, but...

i certainly dont think the paramount concern should be 'recouping costs.' (a Dickens-ian view) I think the bigger concerns are letting people know there are consequences to entering the mountains unprepared - the kid could have died. On the other hand, if negligence is the standard, should the hypothetical 'reasonable teenager' (not sure that is not an oxymoron) be expected to be cautious? In any event, they clearly need to amend the law to impose financial liability upon parents. Only then might you see any behavioral change amongst the younger generation.

spider solo said:

Am I missing something other than he made some honest mistakes...?

Click to expand...

The problem seems to be the State of NH is inconsistent in who they charge and the amount they do. I would rather see most rescuees charged a considerably less fee (even if I am not negligent I would be happy to pay, say $1000 if it means I live) than one "token" case a pretty substantial fee that odds are may never get paid.

Brian

One of the big phrases that circulated with this reckless hiker statute is that the hiker's actions must be against what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. I really hope that the state puts out a report on what was deemed reckless in this case. From what I recollect, he had crampons, proper gear, and survived additional nights on his own. Sounds like he was prepared.

The morning the boy got lost, I was on the Boott Spur trail at 2AM to catch a sunrise. Is this what a reasonable person would do? Probably not. Was I being reckless? I don't believe so, I felt comfortable, had proper gear, had hiked the trail a few times before, and had done many prior night hikes. But what I consider within my comforts may seem unreasonable to others. If I was injured, would I have been "fined"?

I think that this idea/law needs better definition, because it sounds like many of us who enjoy these mountains might want to consider an insurance policy...