$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[MarkJ]

He should go to Australia and hike.You can get lost for 2 weeks with a blanket roll and small water bottle,get rescued and go on TV and then get offered 160k for a book deal.

 

[mookie]

Perhaps it would have been better for the family and the state if the kid had stayed home and smoked crack instead of hiking, maybe broken into a few cars as well .....

certainly would have been cheaper, lol

haha.
or he could just eat junk food, drink energy drinks and play video games all day like most teenagers.

 

[funkyfreddy]

haha.
or he could just eat junk food, drink energy drinks and play video games all day like most teenagers.

maybe that's the problem w younger hikers..... no reset button

just think..... out there in the wilderness w/o a reset button..... truly frightening, isn't it?

 

[Stash]

He should go to Australia and hike.You can get lost for 2 weeks with a blanket roll and small water bottle,get rescued and go on TV and then get offered 160k for a book deal.

There's the legal defense for anyone who gets hit by this thing!!! If F&G bills you "I was just emulating what I see on the Discovery Channel and that's an educational station." Then you could sue the TV guy for giving bad advice.

You'd actually end up on the positive end of the cash flow...

 

[Daniel Eagan]

I couldn't disagree with this more. For some of us, this law and this incident has far more direct relevance than it does to the vast majority of New Hampshire residents.

And yes, god forbid I'm in need of a SAR, I do not expect to have to pay for it. Nor do I expect to have to pay for an the fire department to put out my burning house, the police to investigate a break-in, or to borrow a book from the library.

But don't your taxes pay for the police and library and fire department? And if they determine that you were the cause of the fire/break-in/loss of library book, won't you be fined and/or arrested?

When I'm hiking, I don't "expect" anyone to rescue me. But this debate might be more interesting presented from a different angle. Say it's raining, and you've slipped coming down Jefferson, and your leg is shattered so you can't move. How much would you pay for someone to come get you before you die of hypothermia?

 

[sardog1]

The statute authorizes F & G to file a lawsuit to "pursue payment" of a preexisting and predetermined legal liability. The judgment in such a lawsuit would allow the state to pursue property seizure, wage garnishment and other court-ordered strategies to satisfy the bill. The language of the statute does not suggest the court would have any authority to decide whether the hiker is liable in the first instance (i.e., was or was not negligent).

This crabbed reading of the statute will not prevail, IMO. You don't really believe that such an interpretation would survive a due process challenge, do you, where there has been no hearing or even a legislated opportunity for mere submission of information by the rescuee? You really believe that as a lawyer? I'd take a look at Mathews v. Eldridge and its progeny again, if I were you.

 

[griffin]

But don't your taxes pay for the police and library and fire department? And if they determine that you were the cause of the fire/break-in/loss of library book, won't you be fined and/or arrested?

Well, no - unless I deliberately set my house on fire, or stole my own property, I wouldn't be charged. But if I was smoking in bed, or left my windows and doors unlocked while I was away "hiking the AT"? No, they're not charging me.

My insurance company might refuse to pay a settlement, but that's another story.

I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the issue of billing people for rescue in general, but I do object to what appears to be an arbitrary and excessive fine (and whatever they're calling it, unless they bill EVERYONE for rescue, a fine is what it is). I think they're trying to make an example out of this kid, and I don't think that's fair, or a good use of civil law.

And I don't think it will make a dime's worth of difference in the way people act in the woods. People don't get in trouble because they think "oh, I"m not prepared/trained for this, but I can always call SAR" They get in trouble because they don't think/know that they aren't prepared.

 

[paul ron]

Now hold on there you kids! If you are rescued in a National Park, don't your federal taxes pay for the service? Isn't that a National Forest? Didn't I pay my taxes?

ALso... if there are expected "resonable behavior," then why not issue a book of rules listing these "resonable behaviors?" I'd say, without such published rules, there is no contract... implied or otherwise since not everyone thinks alike in life n death situations. Perhaps the foot only hurt on the down grade n up was much easier to negotiate? There is no case.

NH, keep your mountains, your rules stink.

Hotels in the sky, permits, smog railway, private camping sites, removing trail markers, taking out bridges, knocking down lean-tos n not replacing em, AMC RMC mobsters robbing the tourists. Love the money but hate to work for it.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

It seems to me that a lot of non-New Hampshire residents are criticizing this action.... Most people who live in New Hampshire tend of have a more independent point of view from my experience, and maybe that is the difference. Up here, this law is a non-issue.

I am a NH resident going on my 22nd year (from college graduation I set out here and have lived and/or worked here since.) I support the law. The evidence we have from the media (and I heard a quote on NHPR this morning that F&G had NOT spoken with Mason prior to issuing the bill) does not construe negligence in THIS reasonable person's mind. Especially if told to continue up and to the GG by AMC Pinkham - that involves them, IMO, in the negligence decision.

Do we know if the NH AG (or anybody on his staff) is a hiker...?

The NH AG is not a he - her name is Kelly Ayotte and I used to race bicycles with her on weekends and go on training rides with her during the week.

As an aside, I think sardog's point about calling it a "bill to recoup costs" vs. a "fine" is important, as it speaks to the intent behind the legislation (economic vs. punitive). However, while the original intent may have been economic, the way the law is being applied and comments like "teaching hikers not to go out unprepared" certainly gives the appearance that it's being used as a punitive measure.

A bill for exactly $25,000 seems statistically unlikely. A bill which doesn't itemize costs is generally unacceptable for all other forms of service. Imagine submitting a doctor/hospital bill or a loss/damage claim to your insurance for one round blanket amount...

In this case it is clear the plan was too ambitious for a day hike and possible that poor advice was given.

Whether it was or was not too ambitious really depends on that famous individual - A. Reasonable Person. What is true about this statement is the conjunction of the two operands, on e of which may have been Mason's fall (too ambitious, but he wasn't really given a choice to turn around as the poor advice came from a seemingly reliable source - AMC Pinkham.)

Many could reasonably assume that the Presidential Traverse or the Pemi Loop (or double Pemi) are too ambitious and that any injury on something that ambitious construes negligence, and yet we read dozens of TRs on these every year.

I do object to what appears to be an arbitrary and excessive fine (and whatever they're calling it, unless they bill EVERYONE for rescue, a fine is what it is). I think they're trying to make an example out of this kid, and I don't think that's fair, or a good use of civil law.

Again the law allows them to collect if the rescuee was found negligent. The definition of negligent is the sticking point here. Jeans, sneakers, cotton, etc., we'd all be hanging him out to dry.

Tim

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The NH AG is not a he - her name is Kelly Ayotte and I used to race bicycles with her on weekends and go on training rides with her during the week.

Correction. She resigned on July 7, 2009, which I had not heard.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ayotte)

Tim

 

[Stash]

Correction. She resigned on July 7, 2009, which I had not heard.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Ayotte)

Tim

She didn't want to handle the appeal??

 

[sardog1]

Some grist for the mill from the afore-mentioned Performance Audit Report:

 

[Gris]

Interesting

More was spent rescuing residents than non-residents...

 

[sardog1]

One insight into the "Other" and "Unknown" categories of SAR missions above. Fish and Game responds to many incidents involving despondent persons and persons under the influence of some substance. These rarely make it into the newspapers. You might be surprised to know how many times I've passed through your yard in the middle of the night with my dog.

 

[Remix]

I do not think the topic is focused on SAR budgets, but the larger public policy question of what is NEGLIGENT or RECKLESS.

Using quotes from Lt Acerno of Fish and Game, all I can find is that hiker was negligent after continuing up the mountain after having some pain in his ankle, veering off the path, and not being prepared for conditions, despite the fact he had and used an emergency bivy bag (for a planned day hike). If I read another AP story correctly, he was found walking to the observatory where he planned to ask for a ride down the mountain.

 

[sardog1]

i do not think the topic is focused on sar budgets, but the larger public policy question of what is negligent or reckless.

Using quotes from lt acerno of fish and game, all i can find is that hiker was negligent after continuing up the mountain after having some pain in his ankle, veering off the path, and not being prepared for conditions, despite the fact he had and used an emergency bivy bag (for a planned day hike). If i read another ap story correctly, he was found walking to the observatory where he planned to ask for a ride down the mountain.

The entire reason for the statute was the budget situation.

 

[Stash]

the entire reason for the statute was the budget situation.

My only issue is the reason or lack thereof with which enforcement is applied.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Just got a snail mail from Nat Geo:

"You're enjoying a picnic in a mountain park, and you decide to hike higher to take in the view ... But when it's time to head home, you can't find the trail. And Sunset's just an hour away... What's the first thing you should do?"

Answer:

Buy the National Geographic "Complete Survival Manual"

 

[Remix]

Ok, its understandable to control costs by implementing a statute, but what (in this case) constitutes negligence or recklessness?

 

[Stash]

Just got a snail mail from Nat Geo:

"You're enjoying a picnic in a mountain park, and you decide to hike higher to take in the view ... But when it's time to head home, you can't find the trail. And Sunset's just an hour away... What's the first thing you should do?"

Answer:

Buy the National Geographic "Complete Survival Manual"

Not gonna work...

"National Geographic joins with the American Red Cross, the U.S. Army, and the Boy and Girl Scouts to reveal the secrets of emergency survival—in any situation."

Guess why??