$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

[Gris]

Yup

Apparently some members of the National Association of Search and Rescue have some strong feelings and suggest making a defense fund for the hiker.

Here is the story.

This (the Nat'l Assoc SAR position) is exactly what I've been wondering about - is it good policy for the cost of rescue to possibly deter some from calling for help (OTOH, a millionaire might think nothing of calling for a $25K rescue).

 

[Stash]

Quote from the story...

" The decision to levy the fine was apparently made after Fish and Game officials talked with Mason shortly after his rescue.

Paul said he'd be curious to know whether at the outset of that conversation Fish and Game officials advised the young man that they were also assessing possible negligence on his part."​

Hey legal folks.. Does Miranda apply here? Anything that you say can be used against you....

 

[Stash]

This (the Nat'l Assoc SAR position) is exactly what I've been wondering about - is it good policy for the cost of rescue to possibly deter some from calling for help (OTOH, a millionaire might think nothing of calling for a $25K rescue).

Ya mean only Beemers and Mercedes at the trail head???

 

[Gris]

naw

Hey legal folks.. Does Miranda apply here? Anything that you say can be used against you....

No, Miranda does not apply since this is not a criminal proceeding. It's more akin to a traffic accident. However, there could possibly be a privilege argument if there is a state statute conferring a privilege, like some states have with stmts given to facilitate a police report (on the theory that they want people to co-operate with the authorities).

 

[Tom Rankin]

Hey legal folks.. Does Miranda apply here? Anything that you say can be used against you....

Certainly not directly, he was not charged with a crime. (I'm not a Lawyer).

 

[J.Dub]

Ya mean only Beemers and Mercedes at the trail head???

And people are complaining about trailhead car break-ins now...

 

[Little Rickie]

I just googled the news on this kid and found this is largest amount billed ever!

 

[WinterWarlock]

I mean heck, I call an ambulance to take me to a hospital, I go see a doctor, and whether I jumped the gun on a medical issue or not (i.e. whether 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

Brian -

First, I'm going to admit I haven't read the entire thread yet, only up to this post of yours, BUT...

What if, in your example, you were told that because the local ambulance was busy they had to call one from another area, and because of that you were going to be charged exorbitantly more than you have been? To me, that's part of the problem here...the state couldn't respond directly, brought in a contractor, and probably have an increased cost themselves.

I realize there aren't standard fees for rescue service - but this appears to be (in part) precipitated by the fact that normal NH birds weren't available, for whatever reason that may have been so.

 

[WinterWarlock]

despite the fact he had and used an emergency bivy bag (for a planned day hike).

I would think that, compared to a reasonable person, or normal behavior, that in and of itself shows preparedness and safety planning. Not everyone carries a bivy on a day-hike...so maybe we're all negligent?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

What if, in your example, you were told that because the local ambulance was busy they had to call one from another area, and because of that you were going to be charged exorbitantly more than you have been? To me, that's part of the problem here...the state couldn't respond directly, brought in a contractor, and probably have an increased cost themselves.

In most cases, there are reciprocity agreements, especially with smaller towns. What happens when you have a five-alarm fire and only 2 stations in the town? 3 more come from nearby, and you reciprocate. Is there a billing / cross-charging in the process?

so maybe we're all negligent?

THAT is the source of much of the concern expressed here.

Tim

 

[WinterWarlock]

In most cases, there are reciprocity agreements, especially with smaller towns. What happens when you have a five-alarm fire and only 2 stations in the town? 3 more come from nearby, and you reciprocate. Is there a billing / cross-charging in the process?

For fires, there probably is - for helo's, maybe not? I dunno...

I'd be concerned as to why the local one wasn't available...were they off on another mission (good thing) or was the bird not flyable (not so good)

 

[bandana4me]

Negligence

Let’s run through the time line to define negligence and determine whether the bill was justified.

1. The hiker does not come home within a reasonable time (determined by his parents). Para phrased; he “NEGLECTED” to come home.
2. The parents then call and notify the authorities and tell them he is missing and ask them to provide a “SERVICE” to find him (when asking someone to provide a service I would expect a bill [we do live in America] ).
3. The SAR is dispatched from both the ground and the air putting their lives and well being at “RISK” (no value in putting lives at risk?).


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


neg⋅li⋅gence
 
3. Law. the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.

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.

Did the parents ask for the care of the SAR?
Did they put the SAR at risk?


SHOULD THEY PAY FOR A SERVICE PROVIDED?

 

[WinterWarlock]

SHOULD THEY PAY FOR A SERVICE PROVIDED?

I'd say yes - but two things come to mind...one, the fees are not being charged consistently. I suspect that if every rescue involved a fee, people would be more comfortable with the idea than if some arbitrarily selected rescues are billed; and two, as has been mentioned here, the fee being charged doesn't seem reasonable or realistic. So,

- Bill them for what it cost? Sure.
- Bill only them and let others go? Nope
- Make up large, round numbers for the bill? Nope again.

 

[bandana4me]

Has anyone seen the breakdown of the bill?

WinterWarlock,
Have you seen the bill?
What is your determing factor that it was too much?
Maybe this is the begining of charging everyone?
Unless we know these answers, how can we stop them from charging now?

 

[WinterWarlock]

WinterWarlock,
Have you seen the bill?
What is your determining factor that it was too much?
Maybe this is the beginning of charging everyone?
Unless we know these answers, how can we stop them from charging now?

True enough - you got me there. But when was the last time you had a bill that large that was an exact number? Clearly there is some rounding...and I'd guess up, and not down.

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

It still doesn't explain the indiscriminate nature of billing for services, and the 'negligence' claim will always be fuzzy and nebulous. So they either charge everyone, or no one.


PS - let me add that I'm not opposed to paying a fee for rescue, what I'm opposed to here is inconsistency. Let's not make this kid the Mercury Morris of hiking just to make an example.

 

[Dave Bear]

For fires, there probably is - for helo's, maybe not? I dunno...

I'd be concerned as to why the local one wasn't available...were they off on another mission (good thing) or was the bird not flyable (not so good)

This makes a great point! If the extra charge is for the chopper coming from Maine then it is reasonable to assume that an instance could happen where two rescues are being performed at the same time. This could have one person paying a much higher fine than the other in similar rescues. NH should not need to have an abundance of redundant resources just in case people are negligent but should have reasonable resources and the community support as well as governments. They are a primarily volunteer effort that provides a "service" which benefits us and a community whose livelihood does depend on tourism.

The paths through the mountains are not paved sidewalks and it is reasonable to expect some injuries and we as Americans should feel measures should prevent a death from an ankle injury to one of our citizens. We should also be willing to extend the same level of caring in some manner to people of other countries that come and spend tourist dollars if they have a manner to reciprocate. This expectation should not give a false sense of security that if somone is calous in how they hike that they will be rescued or that it will be free!

 

[NewHampshire]

For fires, there probably is - for helo's, maybe not? I dunno...

I'd be concerned as to why the local one wasn't available...were they off on another mission (good thing) or was the bird not flyable (not so good)

My guess would be not also simply because between the State of NH and the National Guard there probably has never been an instance yet where something like this would have necessitated forming some kind of agreement. I would say by the amount levied no because the state is trying to reoucp costs paid out, thus it tells me they had to pay for the use of Maine's helicopter.

And for those that make the argument this is such bad press it will keep a lot of people away I think you may be deluding yourselves. The White Mountains have been a destination for a long time. People came, come and will continue to do so no matter what. A few people may shake their heads not not head up there, but it is silly to think this is going to cause a mass shunning of the region. If anything it will make people think twice if they start to get themselves into a "situation", and is that really a bad thing?

Brian

 

[WinterWarlock]

My guess would be not also simply because between the State of NH and the National Guard there probably has never been an instance yet where something like this would have necessitated forming some kind of agreement. I would say by the amount levied no because the state is trying to reoucp costs paid out, thus it tells me they had to pay for the use of Maine's helicopter.

That's sort of what I surmised as well...so the lesson is here is, if you're going to need rescuing, be sure you're the first one of the day 'cause it will be cheaper.

And for those that make the argument this is such bad press it will keep a lot of people away I think you may be deluding yourselves. The White Mountains have been a destination for a long time. People came, come and will continue to do so no matter what. A few people may shake their heads not not head up there, but it is silly to think this is going to cause a mass shunning of the region. If anything it will make people think twice if they start to get themselves into a "situation", and is that really a bad thing?

Brian

And I'd bet the vast majority of the tourist-types will never even know this happened, so the example is being set for us!

Ignorance is bliss, until you get the bill for it....

 

[chomp]

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

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

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Let’s run through the time line to define negligence and determine whether the bill was justified.

1. The hiker does not come home within a reasonable time (determined by his parents). Para phrased; he “NEGLECTED” to come home.
...

So if I break my ankle or have a heart attack or in any other way am delayed, that automatically makes me negligent?

SHOULD THEY PAY FOR A SERVICE PROVIDED?

If SAR is a fee-for-service, then yes, and all who get SAR service should get a bill. It's not, however, and the statute clearly says negligent. The definition thereof is something we would all dearly love to see. Apparently though we are not going to get one.

Tim