$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[Paradox]

I just sent an email supporting the State of New Hampshire. The law may not be perfect, but there needs to be a dis-incentive to call for help. 9-1-1 is not bailout plan.

This kid is a minor, and his parents allowing him to go on a hike like this is terrible parenting. They are still legally responsible for him and should have taken more of an interest in what he was doing, and the dangers of doing a hike like that with the conditions such as they were. At minimum, they should have required him to hike with a friend.

Due to their negligence as parents, I'm all for charging them for the cost of the rescue. They substituted 9-1-1 and SAR for responsible parenting skills. Which is fine, as long as you are willing to pay for it.

Don't tell me let me guess: I bet you don't have any kids.

 

[spider solo]

According to what I read the helicopter resources were pulled from Maine for this search, not sure where NH's chopper was.

What upsets me about the hikers being fined and increasingly picked on as a target is:


1. Are kayakers fined when they are lost along the Maine coast or farther out to sea? I could only imagine what USCG air and sea assets cost to run.

I do a lot of kayaking and don't know the answer, so I posted the question over on a well respected local kayak forum. I know some have been rescued and some have been checked on even though they were ok.

Hopefully there wil be some responses and maybe we'll be able to compare "apples for apples"

My initial thought is that we have already paid for things like this with our taxes, whether paddling or hiking etc...but it's worth knowing the answer one way or the other...

 

[Little Rickie]

Another perspective:

I called for help. Thank you for finding my son. You may have saved his life! Bless you all for the fine work you do.

Is the family upset about the fine?

I would a little but I would try to get the judge to work out some service time for my son to do to help satisify the debt. I think that would help my 17 yr old son learn his lession better rather than me just digging into my pocket.

 

[Stash]

This kid is a minor, and his parents allowing him to go on a hike like this is terrible parenting. They are still legally responsible for him and should have taken more of an interest in what he was doing, and the dangers of doing a hike like that with the conditions such as they were. At minimum, they should have required him to hike with a friend.

Scott Mason was 17 at the time of the event. Given identical circumstances were it to happen this winter will the response be the same? After 12 months? Not a lot of time for a lot of change...

 

[Chip]

The ONLY problem I have with rescue fines/fees is that it may discourage the needy from making the call and they could wind up dead vs safe and upset about the cost.

 

[spider solo]

(I did ask the question on whether we as sea kayakers are charged for a rescue. Some members did respond at www.nspn.org.
Mostly to get an idea whether other outdoor activities are charged or not. Not so much if it's right or wrong... just how things are currently)

back to this young fellows' rescue
How is it that the state of Maine charges the state of NH in a National Forest who then tries to pin it on a 17 year old ??
Is it because he is on state land ? One respondent (not here) mentioned that it would not matter whose land the person is on, and he is probably right.

I understand F&G are short funded but in a National Forest, Park, Monument or whatever... wouldn't it be logical that the expenses be paid out of National funds? Again in which case we have all already paid for this rescue as well as the rescue of both good and not so good people we have never even heard of ?

 

[spider solo]

he will fight the charges...

it took a lot of "googling" but...according to what I read he did send $1,000 to F&G and is "shocked" they hit him for $ 25,000.
(others probably know how to link to it)
I think F&G will lose in respect what they hope to gain in $$ money, money, money.

 

[sardog1]

back to this young fellows' rescue
How is it that the state of Maine charges the state of NH in a National Forest who then tries to pin it on a 17 year old ??
Is it because he is on state land ? One respondent (not here) mentioned that it would not matter whose land the person is on, and he is probably right.

I understand F&G are short funded but in a National Forest, Park, Monument or whatever... wouldn't it be logical that the expenses be paid out of National funds? Again in which case we have all already paid for this rescue as well as the rescue of both good and not so good people we have never even heard of ?

NH Fish & Game has the statutory authority for inland SAR throughout the state. They're in charge, with the single exception that they have ceded lead agency authority to the WMNF for operations in the Cutler River basin during the period December to May 31. (This is because the WMNF snow rangers have the avalanche expertise and lots of experience dealing with emergencies in the basin in the winter.)

Across the U.S., local and state agencies generally manage SAR operations even when they occur in National Forests and BLM land. The Forest Service generally lacks the resources to conduct SAR operations, with such exceptions as noted above. Their individual personnel will often assist the local or state agency. In National Parks and some National Monuments, the feds are usually in charge and many NPS park rangers have enormous SAR experience. On tribal reservations, the picture gets pretty murky, with all kinds of entanglements with federal Indian law that vary widely across the country.

 

[NewHampshire]

By NHF&G's logic, it would seem that I'm negligent.

I think F&G will lose in respect what they hope to gain in $$ money, money, money.

I am sorry, I know it is a minor nit pick, but to me it is not. It is not New Hampshire Fish and Game but the STATE of New Hampshire making all these rumblings. F&G are the ones responsible for rescuing us (which they do so whether they think anyone was negligent or not.) If you read back a ways you will see a couple of us wonder if somehow the state does manage to get the money back if F&G would receive said reimbursment. F&G is a self funded, generally self run (it was designed to be as autonomous from State authroity as such a state department could be, hence why it is self funded) organization, and as such is not responsible for what the State of NH may be trying to get from this kid.

Brian

 

[sardog1]

I am sorry, I know it is a minor nit pick, but to me it is not. It is not New Hampshire Fish and Game but the STATE of New Hampshire making all these rumblings. F&G are the ones responsible for rescuing us (which they do so whether they think anyone was negligent or not.) If you read back a ways you will see a couple of us wonder if somehow the state does manage to get the money back if F&G would receive said reimbursment. F&G is a self funded, generally self run (it was designed to be as autonomous from State authroity as such a state department could be, hence why it is self funded) organization, and as such is not responsible for what the State of NH may be trying to get from this kid.

Brian

Well, actually it's Fish and Game performing the duty assigned to it by the Legislature:

"206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery. –
I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department's expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.
II. If any person fails to make payment under paragraph I, the executive director of the fish and game department may:
(a) Order any license, permit, or tag issued by the fish and game department to be suspended or revoked, after due hearing.
(b) Notify the commissioner of the department of health and human services of such nonpayment. The nonpayment shall constitute cause for revocation of any license or certification issued by the commissioner pursuant to RSA 126-A:20 and RSA 151:7.
(c) Notify the director of motor vehicles of such nonpayment and request suspension of the person's driver's license pursuant to RSA 263:56."

 

[NewHampshire]

Well, actually it's Fish and Game performing the duty assigned to it by the Legislature:

"206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery. –
I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department's expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.
II. If any person fails to make payment under paragraph I, the executive director of the fish and game department may:
(a) Order any license, permit, or tag issued by the fish and game department to be suspended or revoked, after due hearing.
(b) Notify the commissioner of the department of health and human services of such nonpayment. The nonpayment shall constitute cause for revocation of any license or certification issued by the commissioner pursuant to RSA 126-A:20 and RSA 151:7.
(c) Notify the director of motor vehicles of such nonpayment and request suspension of the person's driver's license pursuant to RSA 263:56."

I stand corrected.

Brian

 

[sardog1]

[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.]

As noted in the section quoted above from the new(er) statute, an explicit provision for recovery by the state of legal fees, costs and interest in obtaining and enforcing the judgment was enacted.

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

I also support the state. The law is no secret, and the hiker should have been aware of that and prepared for the conditons. So he's fighting the fine - no surprise there. As a 17-year old, aren't his parents liable for the 25K?

 

[AOC-1]

This is a technical legal point, but it sheds light on how much power the N.H. legislature has now given the F & G to wield over hikers and others in these matters. The original law required a finding by a court before liability would attach. It allowed recovery "if in the judgment of the court such person . . . recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response." The F & G had to sue AND WIN before it could collect against someone.

As Sardog's post above reveals, the new statute eliminates the hiker's right to court review before the fine is imposed. Liability is "determined by the department" of F & G, which itself sets a fine without involvement of a court. The only legal right specifically mentioned in the new law is the right of F & G "to pursue payment" by legal action. Unpaid fines can even result in administrative suspension of a person's driver's license. That really flips things upside down!

In my state (NY) and many others, such an administrative fine scheme would trigger a person's right to seek limited court review of the basis for the agency's decision (but usually not a jury trial). In these cases, courts typically uphold the agency's decision unless it is declared to be arbitrary or capricious. If N.H. law is similar (anyone know?) there would be no independent judicial review of the correctness of F & G's negligence determination, only a limited review of whether F & G had a reasonable basis for the finding. As you might imagine, it is difficult for an individual to prevail in these cases. Scary, especially considering the N.H. legislature also eliminated the $10K monetary cap on these fines.

 

[Jaytrek57]

I'll admit I'm not as knowlegable as others.

But 25k makes me wonder if the State of NH researched this family's history as far as $$.

Again...could be me...but it seems to high/to public...People drinking have payed less IIRC.

For what it is worth... charge no-one. Work out the details.

Jay

 

[sardog1]

Liability is "determined by the department" of F & G, which itself sets a fine without involvement of a court. The only legal right specifically mentioned in the new law is the right of F & G "to pursue payment" by legal action. Unpaid fines can even result in administrative suspension of a person's driver's license. That really flips things upside down!

In my state (NY) and many others, such an administrative fine scheme would trigger a person's right to seek limited court review of the basis for the agency's decision (but usually not a jury trial). In these cases, courts typically uphold the agency's decision unless it is declared to be arbitrary or capricious. If N.H. law is similar (anyone know?) there would be no independent judicial review of the correctness of F & G's negligence determination, only a limited review of whether F & G had a reasonable basis for the finding. As you might imagine, it is difficult for an individual to prevail in these cases. Scary, especially considering the N.H. legislature also eliminated the $10K monetary cap on these fines.

I would really like it if people here and in the news media would stop referring to this as a fine. It's a recovery of expenses incurred by the state. A fine is something levied as a punishment under a criminal or civil statute and is apart from this sort of restitution. It might seem to some as a picky technical legal point, but it is not. Calling it a "fine" obscures the reason for the statute and the nature of what the state wants to recover.

And your driver's license can be suspended for unpaid parking tickets without a court order in many jurisdictions.

 

[Remix]

So, he is not being punished for being negligent?

 

[AOC-1]

And your driver's license can be suspended for unpaid parking tickets without a court order in many jurisdictions.

This hiker negligence law actually provides fewer protections than do parking violations laws. You have a right to contest a simple parking ticket in court before being fined. The state must prove your guilt first. And your driver's license cannot be suspended unless liability is established, or you default by not appearing in court. But here, a hiker's liability is declared by agency fiat. Pay the "bill" or suffer the consequences. Pretty harsh stuff.

 

[sardog1]

So, he is not being punished for being negligent?

No, he's not being punished. He's being billed for expenses incurred by the state from his alleged negligence. If you drop a tree on your neighbor's roof and he has to hire a contractor to fix it, you're not being punished when he sues you for the amount he incurred to pay the contractor and he wins a judgment against you.

 

[DougPaul]

No, he's not being punished. He's being billed for expenses incurred by the state from his alleged negligence. If you drop a tree on your neighbor's roof and he has to hire a contractor to fix it, you're not being punished when he sues you for the amount he incurred to pay the contractor and he wins a judgment against you.

A distinction with very little difference.

The arbitrariness with which this "bill" is being applied also weakens this argument.

Doug