$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[sardog1]

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.

The state incurred costs of at least a reported $25,000. Fish and Game has a statute explicitly authorizing them to recover the costs from the party responsible. There's no way a court doesn't consider the state legally able to sue for the recovery.

Whether it ought to be able to recover the state's expenses in this particular incident is a matter ultimately for a jury to decide (or a judge, if both parties waive their jury right.) But personally, I think the amount is too small for it to go that far. Defense counsel will advise the client to negotiate a settlement, and the state will do that in the end, IMO. We won't have a verdict on one of these until we have an incredibly stubborn defendant or a big enough tab to make it worth while to roll the dice. IMO, $25 K is not that amount. Anyone who disagrees should find a lawyer and ask what this one would cost to take to a verdict, not to mention the possibility of having to pay the state's legal fees and/or case costs if you lose. (I can't access the statutes right now, so that last possibility is without a citation available to confirm it.)

 

[cushetunk]

Mason's rescue was particularly expensive because the helicopters the state typically used were unavailable, and a helicopter from Maine had to be brought in, Acerno said.

This is worth pondering. Don't get lost on days when the local helicopters aren't available. It almost would be better if there was a fine, with a set maximum.


I really hope someone challenges this.

Of course, it probably won't be some hiker. Instead, it will be when a hunter or fisherman (or woman) ends up costing the state $25,000 to rescue and subsequently finds out that they were "hiking" and that it was negligent to split up, or be alone while in the woods.

And if I were the hiker challenging this I'd get out in the news and I would say things like "this rule threatens the basic right of hikers, hunters, anglers and all other outdoors enthusiasts to enjoy traditional activities without Big Brother second-guessing their every step." The word hikers would never leave my mouth unless followed by the word hunters.

 

[Gris]

4 shure

Absolutely, can i get an amen on the 'no big brother' angle?

All kinds of interesting issues here.

E.g., is bushwhacking by definition negligent? (because you left the trail...)

Or are some people (those with really advanced skills) allowed to bushwhack.

Is anyone having to be rescued while climbing to be fined because they engaged in an inherently dangerous activity?

Or are very experienced climbers OK?

All rescued ice climbers fined double just for being crazy? LOL

Winter rescues are more expensive so the fine is bigger?

People in less than perfect health negligent for even venturing out?

Where does it end?

IMO, they never should have switched the std from reckless/grossly negligent to simple negligence.

 

[rocket21]

The state incurred costs of at least a reported $25,000. Fish and Game has a statute explicitly authorizing them to recover the costs from the party responsible. There's no way a court doesn't consider the state legally able to sue for the recovery.

I just want to be clear that I'm not commenting on whether or not I think someone should pay the expenses incurred. Rather, I'm pointing out that, since he is a minor, this is a different type of case. Again, I'll be interested to see if they're going after him or his parents - if the former is the case, I highly doubt much, if any, of the expenses will be recouped.

 

[NewHampshire]

Of course, it probably won't be some hiker. Instead, it will be when a hunter or fisherman (or woman) ends up costing the state $25,000 to rescue and subsequently finds out that they were "hiking" and that it was negligent to split up, or be alone while in the woods.

And if I were the hiker challenging this I'd get out in the news and I would say things like "this rule threatens the basic right of hikers, hunters, anglers and all other outdoors enthusiasts to enjoy traditional activities without Big Brother second-guessing their every step." The word hikers would never leave my mouth unless followed by the word hunters.

The problem with your argument is that, at the very least, hunters and fishermen pay into the Fish and Game budget. Hikers, unless they buy a license or register their OHRV, etc. do NOT pay into the system. Plus, in general, there are a much higher porportion of "hiker" rescues than hunters or fishermen. One could say it is because there are more hikers out there than hunters/fishermen, but the simple fact is that hiker rescues are an extra burden on the F&G budget.

I guess I just can't wrap my head around some of the opposing views here. The state incurres costs saving lives. That said person is alive to actually dispute the fee should seem a bit ironic (in fact, THERE is an element of this I would like to know....is the kid/family happy to pay it because their son is alive or are they indeed going to fight it!?) Why is it, negligent or not, people are so angry to pay off the people who saved them?

Brian

 

[Puma concolor]

Well, perhaps the hiking population doesn't pay into "the system" the way other sportsmen do, but there are several small towns within the WMNF that live off of mountain tourism ... with much if not most of that money coming from out of state.

Saving lives is what emergency services personnel do whether we are talking about New Hampshire F&G, the police or your local volunteer ambulance service. There have always been and will always be a portion of the population that uses a disproportionate amont of resources. That's just the way it is.

For the most part, I agree with the negilgent hiker statute in NH (at least to an extent) but think this is an absolutely absurd application of the law.

 

[Jason Berard]

....The state incurres costs saving lives. ....

Brian

The State also makes a fair amount in revenue from hikers.....

 

[Jason Berard]

Absolutely, can i get an amen on the 'no big brother' angle?

All kinds of interesting issues here.

E.g., is bushwhacking by definition negligent? (because you left the trail...)

Or are some people (those with really advanced skills) allowed to bushwhack.


Where does it end?

IMO, they never should have switched the std from reckless/grossly negligent to simple negligence.

I know Marty and I didn't get charged on PatN when Ray died.....speaking for myself I'm not really advanced.

I also know we donated $ as a small way to thank those who responded.....

 

[Breeze]

Brian, I understand that costs were incurred in searching for Scott Mason, but in no way did the search save his live.

He self-rescued. He bailed his own <six> out of trouble. All by himself.

He took Six Husbands in order to GET DOWN off the ridge. He'd been advised by AMC at PNVC to use that as a bail. As he descended he realized it was a bad move, deep, wet snow and LOTS of fast running water. He reasoned that he'd have to go BACK UP, but going up 6 Husbands wasn't going to cut it with his ankle. He mapped it from 6 Husbands to Sphinx and bushwacked best he was able, across the cirque and went back UP Sphinx to Gulfside.

To me that is neither negligent, nor reckless. He used his brain, his maps, his advise, and his own personal resources to stay safe and stay alive. He walked his own ass out to the summit of MW.


Ok, costs were incurred for the search, which was touched off by his parents, and I have no problem standing up in applause for the folks I know, respect, and admire who were out there looking for him. THEY didn't save him. He saved himself.

I still can't help but feel that the State of NH and Maj. Tim Acerno are on a major fi$$$hing trip. For some strange reason they think that leaning 25 K heavy on a 17 year old Eagle Scout who saved his own bacon is a good test case for state funds procurement?


Shaking my head here. Did they actually interview Scott to ask if HE ever felt overwhelmed or life-endangered?


Breeze

 

[AOC-1]

IMO, $25 K is not that amount. Anyone who disagrees should find a lawyer and ask what this one would cost to take to a verdict, not to mention the possibility of having to pay the state's legal fees and/or case costs if you lose. (I can't access the statutes right now, so that last possibility is without a citation available to confirm it.)

I'm a lawyer and I don't think this case would be especially costly to take to trial. The facts are apparently not in dispute. The issue is whether the boy's actions amounted to negligence, a legal judgment that could be informed by testimony from experienced hikers about what conduct is within or outside the norm of persons who responsibly engage in the activity. Given some of the reactions of hikers on this board, this certainly doesn't seem to be an open-and-shut case for the state.

The parties may very well settle, but unless the state agrees to accept substantially less, the $25K fine offers plenty of economic incentive to litigate.

[The F & G site links to the old (1999) statute, not the amended one. But there is nothing in the old law authorizing an award of attorney's fees in these cases. The old law also capped liability at $10k.]

 

[rocket21]

I'm a lawyer

Do you think, assuming the state were to only name the 17 year old as the defendant, they'd actually be able to collect the $25,000 (assuming that's a real number)? I'm curious as to whether or not the fine could actually stick and, if it were to, could the teen file bankruptcy. Considering it was the parents who called the search and rescue, it'd be interesting to see if the liability falls back on them rather than the minor.

 

[NewHampshire]

Brian, I understand that costs were incurred in searching for Scott Mason, but in no way did the search save his live.

He self-rescued. He bailed his own <six> out of trouble. All by himself.

But the point is that F&G was dispatched with the intention of saving him. I was actually talking more in a general sense (and perhaps floated in and out of this example) so I apologize for any confusion.

And Jason, I do understand the state makes money off the hiking population, but it is a two way street. One could say the state may take the money it makes from "hikers" (like tolls, rooms and meals taxes from eating out etc.) and spends it poorly, but that is an issue we won't get into .

I agree this seems like a rediculously high amount. But I do also believe the reason they gave. While he may of self rescued himself the fact is that F&G had to go on the knowledge he was in potential danger and needed saving. Imagine the predcident it would set if he popped out of the woods and said "hey I never asked you to come save me, so I am not paying" and the state said "ok, have it that way". Yikes!

Brian

 

[cushetunk]

The problem with your argument is that, at the very least, hunters and fishermen pay into the Fish and Game budget. Hikers, unless they buy a license or register their OHRV, etc. do NOT pay into the system. Plus, in general, there are a much higher porportion of "hiker" rescues than hunters or fishermen. One could say it is because there are more hikers out there than hunters/fishermen, but the simple fact is that hiker rescues are an extra burden on the F&G budget.

I guess I just can't wrap my head around some of the opposing views here. The state incurres costs saving lives. That said person is alive to actually dispute the fee should seem a bit ironic (in fact, THERE is an element of this I would like to know....is the kid/family happy to pay it because their son is alive or are they indeed going to fight it!?) Why is it, negligent or not, people are so angry to pay off the people who saved them?

Brian

Well, no, hunters can't get out of rescue free because they bought a license! Especially if they are negligent. Imagine that precedent: de facto rescue insurance covering stupid mistakes. I doubt F+G wants to find themselves in charge of that.

But, I'm really sympathetic to the funding woes of F+G departments, who do many good things -- much more than just rescues -- that benefit their state's entire population, not just the few who buy licenses or ammunition (federal taxes that get back to the states). I just wish that rather than holding the dept to some antiquated "user-group" funding structure, we could say, "yes, this department does good things for us all, so let's fund it with general tax revenue." Then it wouldn't have to jump through these silly invented "negligent" hoops to find money.

And -- I understand what I just said -- if you see any flying pigs, please let me know.

 

[Breeze]

well, YEAH!


He did pop up all by himself, he saved his own bacon, and for that he gets a 25 thousand dollar " bill" for assistance he never needed or asked for?

He wasn't negligent, he wasn't reckless. His Mommy got freaked, the ball started rolling, and protocol rolls out large to big billing.

problem is that the kid was totally in control of his actions, took all of his advice seriously, acted with good sense and extricated himself admirably.

State of NH will be shooting themselves in both feet if they press this case. Scott Mason chose his best scenario and acted responsibly regardless of his age.



Breeze .

 

[NewHampshire]

Well, no, hunters can't get out of rescue free because they bought a license! Especially if they are negligent. Imagine that precedent: de facto rescue insurance covering stupid mistakes. I doubt F+G wants to find themselves in charge of that.

I don't believe I implied that negligent hunters or fisherman should be exempt from the same processing fees. What my point was is at the very least they ARE putting into the system, whereas hikers really don't. I am sorry if that point was not made clear.

But I agree with your point in a way. I would like to see state money given to the F&G department to offset rescue fees. As Jason noted hikers add significant revenue to the eceonomy, so it should be a no brainer that they should take responsibility for the situation they have helped to create. I would not like to see the entire F&G department come under State funding only because knowing bureaucracy it would turn a generally well run department into a quagmire.

He wasn't negligent, he wasn't reckless. His Mommy got freaked, the ball started rolling, and protocol rolls out large to big billing.

So because his mother was the one who "jumped the gun" so-to speak then New Hampshire should foot the bill? Someone has to pay. Why should it be the tax payers who foot the bill? This state is, like many other states in this time and age, having problems finding funding for anythign and everything. The simple fact is that the state and/or F&G department were informed by someone that this kid was missing and overdue. That he may need help. No one had has heard from him. Should they have simply said "well, we don't know if he needs help or not, lets just give it 24 hours or so"? Someone OUTSIDE the authority responsible for this persons rescue decided there was a problem and contacted those responsible for SAR. Even if the mother jumped the gun why should the state be forced to foot the bill? I mean heck, I call an ambulance to take me to a hospital, I go see a doctor, and wether I jumped the gun on a medical issue or not (i.e. wether my ride and visit were for a good reason or not) I STILL HAVE TO PAY. Why do people think that this si any different?

Brian

 

[AOC-1]

I mean heck, I call an ambulance to take me to a hospital, I go see a doctor, and wether I jumped the gun on a medical issue or not (i.e. wether my ride and visit were for a good reason or not) I STILL HAVE TO PAY. Why do people think that this si any different?
Brian

Because unlike charges incurred for an ambulance ride, legal liability here is not a fee for services rendered. It is imposed only upon a finding of negligence.

 

[Remix]

I dont get it. Are they saying he was negligent because his ankle hurt and he decided to go on? Are they saying he was negligent for leaving the trail?

I really do not see how this rises to the level of negligence. But I do understand that many state budgets are being stretched past there limits by the current economic conditions. Perhaps there are politics involved.

 

[Stash]

I'm a bit concerned with the apparent inconsistent way the fine is applied.

We often see instances of arguably unprepared people requiring rescue for which there is no published recovery from the state. In this instance the hiker was, in the opinion of many on this board, doing all the right things.

A call was made to initiate the rescue because the hiker was overdue. I don't see a history of that being the deciding factor in the need to recover costs. I do not question the costs of the activity and the impact on those involved - those are facts.

The issue, in my mind, is the determination that the hiker was negligent. If this is an example of negligence then I'd like to see some documentation on what is and is not included in the definition for my future planning.

 

[Grumpy]

First of all, let’s get over the idea the NH law is intended to recover costs associated with rescue operations. If the real intent were to recover costs, the law would provide for billings (charges) in every case. This law evidently does not do that. It is directed only selectively at persons who become the subject of SAR operations. To me, that means the law clearly is intended to be a punitive measure.

Stash Z has it right.

The vexing aspect of this case is that we can’t seem to get a good fix on what behavior would get us tagged as “negligent” hikers. That leaves us with a sense that the State of NH is to one degree or another arbitrary in the way it decides who will be fined and who gets a free rescue (or recovery).

At the very least the public should see the state’s detailed analysis of this case, to gain some insight as to what authorities believe constitutes “hiker negligence” that would subject one to this kind of punitive action.

Further, perhaps this is the very kind of case that really should go through the court system, working toward a legal definition of “hiker negligence” in the state of NH, for the world to see and understand.

G.

 

[Gris]

And, of course, the most important Q of all IMO is...

will lost and/or injured hikers, loved ones and friends be reluctant to call the authorities for fear of subjecting the hiker to an incredible, bankrupting fine...? Will somebody die as a result...?