$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[NewHampshire]

The bill was not an exact number. It was $25,234.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1185652

Hmmm, I think CHomp missed another interesting tidbit in the article that deserves note:

Maj. Tim Acerno, who oversees law enforcement for Fish and Game in the Granite State and headed Mason’s rescue in April, said Mason “was negligent” in attempting to hike an “aggressive” trail in wintry conditions, and then taking a “difficult route even after spraining his ankle.”.

Brian

 

[Remix]

North Carolina Weighs In...

 

[WinterWarlock]

Well, so it is...

I guess this is a good argument for a SPOT...this guy did many things right, and tried to self-rescue. Probably would have, too, given enough time. So, a SPOT could have sent the message - "I'm late, but OK."

 

[sardog1]

The questions of whether he had the right equipment or made the right decisions are not the determining factors in the definition of negligence.

Actually, they're liable to be the principal determining factors, especially the second one.

The bill was sent to him, not to his parents. The state is alleging that his negligence was the reason the state incurred its expenses. Putting anyone else at risk is not an issue in the state's demand for recovery of its expenses. It might be a rationale for enacting the legislation, and perhaps for sending the bill as well, but it's not an issue that will be relevant to determining whether he owes the amount demanded.

 

[WinterWarlock]

North Carolina Weighs In...

From the article -

The rescue was particularly expensive because the helicopters the state typically used were unavailable and a helicopter from Maine had to be brought in

So - maybe the State was negligent in not having their helicopter available? I'm just saying - it's all in how you look at it.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

From the article -

So - maybe the State was negligent in not having their helicopter available? I'm just saying - it's all in how you look at it.

The NH Guard helo, which is not really the state's helo, was on a training mission in Michigan, I think. But, there have been lots of times since 2001 when the NH Guard helo has not been available (in Iraq, for example), and I believe that it will be away for an extended time in Afghanistan soon. Helicopters are not cheap, as I have learned in budgeting them into my geological research over the years.

That said, I agree with Sardog1 that this case needs to go to court, not just to settle the payment issue for this particular rescue, but to set a precedent and establish a consistent process for handling costs of future SAR events, which will inevitably occur. There were five SAR cases within a week in the Whites during Scott Mason's rescue.

 

[WinterWarlock]

The NH Guard helo, which is not really the state's helo, was on a training mission in Michigan, I think. But, there have been lots of times since 2001 when the NH Guard helo has not been available (in Iraq, for example), and I believe that it will be away for an extended time in Afghanistan soon. Helicopters are not cheap, as I have learned in budgeting them into my geological research over the years.

That said, I agree with Sardog1 that this case needs to go to court, not just to settle the payment issue for this particular rescue, but to set a precedent and establish a consistent process for handling costs of future SAR events, which will inevitably occur. There were five SAR cases within a week in the Whites during Scott Mason's rescue.

First, your geological research interests me, but I don't want to get off-topic.

And I completely agree with your second paragraph - a precedent does need to be set. Hopefully he'll get a lawyer who do more than just defend him, but will ask the right questions so a meaningful policy can be established.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

This article by David Abel in the Boston Globe was posted in one of the rescue threads during the winter of 2008, I believe, before the new negligence law in NH was passed. However, the article remains a nice summary of SAR issues in the Whites, the recent costs of rescues (even with the "free" Blackhawk helicopter of the NHNG), the definitions of "reckless" and "negligent", etc.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/24/perilous_rescues_at_a_price/?page=1

 

[Remix]

Now Im really confused. Chomp posted a current New Hampshire web page that referred to "reckless" behavior, but I surmise the law has been changed to "negligent" behavior.

 

[NorthShore]

If they are going to charge for SAR, the risk should be shared. One guy getting a huge bill that he can't possibly afford because he sprainied an ankle in an area where thousands of others have hiked isn't just a deterrant, its borders on terrorism.

Some kind of insurance may be the answer.

http://www.backpacker.com/blogs/62

"Everybody is a potential victim; Not just the stupid.

To me, the solution isn’t self-righteous, free-market billing, and the lawyer wrangling that will inevitably result, its rescue insurance like they have in Europe. In the French Alps, for example, locals and visitors alike can purchase rescue insurance cards, renewable annually, for $30 to $40. That money trains, equips and funds professional rescue teams. These policies don’t cover medical costs. You still need a good health insurance plan, but the expenses of finding and evacuating you are covered, and a highly trained SAR infrastructure is created and supported."​

From the same editorial, I found this quote interesting, although I didn't check their facts:

"But it’s easy to pick the wrong target when looking at SAR costs. For example, the major reasons for search and rescue call-outs nationwide are Alzheimer’s patients and ‘despondents’ (potential suicides). "​

I was in the southern presidentials last August while there was a search and rescue, including a helicopter, for a possibly suicidal person. They looked for him for days and I'm not aware that he was ever located. If that cost is to ultimately be shared, it has to be among the entire community, not just some unlucky hiker who sprains an ankle.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Now Im really confused. Chomp posted a current New Hampshire web page that referred to "reckless" behavior, but I surmise the law has been changed to "negligent" behavior.

If you read ALL of the replies carefully, you will see that Chomp qualifies his link as being out of date regarding the terminology and the implications of the change in the law.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Some kind of insurance may be the answer.

Agreed, but I think that it will take a court decision (or two or more) to lead us this direction, just as it did in the Alps many years (decades?) ago.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Nice link, Dr. D.

From http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/24/perilous_rescues_at_a_price/?page=1
Dennis Abbott, chairman of the New Hampshire House's Fish and Game Committee:

The difference, he and others said, is that "reckless" implies someone who becomes aware of a substantial risk and consciously disregards that risk; a "negligent" person is someone who fails to become aware of the risk that a reasonable person should have been aware of

It codifies, somewhat, the legislature's definition of negligent.

I have yet to be convinced by what I have read that Scott Mason "failed to become aware of the risk that a reasonable person should have been aware of." If anything, he was more prepared and more risk-aware than many reasonable people might have been.

Tim

 

[Gris]

Again I will bring in the definition of negligence; the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of OTHER PERSONS (SAR) THAT MAY BE INJURIOUSLY AFFECTED BY THE WANT OF SUCH CARE.

You are missing the mark here. (FWIW, I have been a negilgence trial lawyer for 20+ years and have personally tried numerous multi-million dollar death and injury cases, more from the defense side than the prosecution, but some of each.) The negligence in this case that counts is not the kid putting others at risk, it's his conduct in putting himself at risk so that others had to come and get him. Was his conduct reasonable or not?

The problem with 'negligence' is it is an amorphous concept. A jury can hear conflicting evidence from experts for both sides as to what was reasonable or not under the circumstances and then do an eenie, meanie, minie, moe...

'Reckless' behavior is much easier to define and develope actual standards for.

This case brings back memories of the Tuckerman ravine incident (and resulting, misguided IMO, lawsuit) described in 'Not Without Peril.' The larger issue is, of course, whether society should protect people from nature (really from themselves).

A separate issue, that troubles me is whether someone can become liable for a rescue they didn't want.

 

[--M.]

A separate issue, that troubles me is whether someone can become liable for a rescue they didn't want.

Well said, Gris (everything, but especially this last part).

This is what troubles me as a potential participant in such an experience: this otherwise reasonable person doesn't want helicopters or boots-on-the-ground brought out lightly. I have made it very clear to my wife the circumstances under which to call in the cavalry, and it's made us flex even more on the side of not pushing the panic button. Given this environment, I now consider the State of New Hampshire to be not too different from the mafia: "Take our 'protection,' whether you want it or not."

If the case is adjudicated fairly and rationally, then I suppose it's possible the kid earned his whack. It just doesn't seem like it from what I see so far.

Or maybe the State wants to force a clarification and wants to use the courts to do it.

I agree it's an important precedent-setter.

I also thank all who donate their time and safety to others.

 

[Remix]

If you read ALL of the replies carefully, you will see that Chomp qualifies his link as being out of date regarding the terminology and the implications of the change in the law.

Ok, I was just confused because New Hampshire has not updated the hikesafe webpages.

 

[sardog1]

BTW - here's an alternative...join the AAC and get Rescue Insurance included in your membership.

The AAC plan is not insurance and it is definitely not a solution to the outdoor recreationist's exposure to the NH statute. This comes up here about every six months. Here's why it is not insurance.

 

[sardog1]

Some kind of insurance may be the answer.

http://www.backpacker.com/blogs/62

I've made this point elsewhere above, but in view of the irresponsible reporting in the Backpacker editorial at this link, I'm going to emphasize it here. The AAC benefit described in the Backpacker editorial is NOT going to do anything for the search part of a SAR mission. Read this explicit disclaimer from the benefit's FAQs:

"“Searching” is not part of GR’s covered member services at any level – the base “trailhead rescue” level you receive as an AAC member,
or the full membership (which provides up to $500,000 of rescue and evacuation services). That’s not to say GR wouldn’t search for you –
just that any searching involved is not part of GR covered services, so you (or your friends) would have to agree in advance to be
responsible for those costs.

The issue with “searching” – compared to “rescue” – is that searching is unpredictable from a financial perspective, and could become very
expensive. There are no defined limits as to when a search is appropriate and when it is time to stop. If GR gets a call concerning a
member who is missing, they will do everything in their power to assist them, including activating local SAR resources, but any costs
related to the search will not be GR’s (or the AAC’s) responsibility. If the search needs to occur in a place without an established local
SAR team or resource and GR performs it themselves using their own air assets and teams, they would need guarantee of payment in
advance."

This issue is complicated enough without the (inevitable?) insertion of significant errors into the debate by the media.

Tomorrow (or is it today already? ) I'll look at what our SPOT friends are offering for "insurance" that Backpacker's writer is touting.

 

[Lou Hale]

Or maybe the State wants to force a clarification and wants to use the courts to do it.

I agree it's an important precedent-setter.

I agree it would be nice to see some precedent set, so we all know what to expect. Right wrong or otherwise at least we can "reasonably " know what to expect.

It also nice to see litigation doing something worthwhile for a change. However as some one who is currently spending $215/hour to defend against a wrongful death negligence I had absolutly nothing to do with, I wonder who is going to help this kid pay to litigate this for the rest of our collective benefit ? Maybe its different in New Hampshire but around here a $10,000- $20,000 bill for litigation that goes to trial is common place.

 

[WinterWarlock]

It's not that different here in NH (although hourly rates may well be somewhat lower), which is why I previously predicted that this one won't go to trial. Exposure to a $25,000+ judgment, plus a possible award of attorney's fees, costs, and interest to the state, plus the expense of defending this = settle long before trial. And if there is in fact liability coverage available under a homeowner's policy, the insurer will call the shots here and get it done pretty quickly. Remember, this is a recovery for alleged negligence, not a fine -- I'm guessing the homeowner's insurer is proceeding right now under a reservation of rights.

Or, someone might take this pro bono and insist it go to court simply to set the precedent...