Cost of hiking on Franconia Ridge - fail

[Raven]

That was kind of the point, they couldn't get there without a lot of assistance. However, once there, they were able to move about unassisted.

This does make sense now that I see what you mean.

I totally wasn't considering that angle - I was more thinking the ramp would be kind of unnecessary for some of the wheel-chair bound athletes (and fully modifed wheel chairs) that could navigate even parts of the trails to the hut.

I'll look at it slightly differently now if it gets used that way.

 

[kerry13]

Little follow up on this. Appears this guy is appealing his fine to the NH Supreme Court.
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140928/NEWHAMPSHIRE03/140929153/0/Island06

 

[Mark]

Maybe he's doing it based on principal, but I would think paying lawyers to argue your case all the way to the state supreme court would cost more than then just paying the fine.

 

[sierra]

Some people will never admit they made a mistake, no matter what the cost. Seems to me, if someone hauled me out of the mountains in those conditions, under those circumstances, rather then pay some quick talking lawyer, I pay the rescue cost.

 

[Remix]

On general principles, I hope he wins. As soon as you let and fish and game warden decide what medical condition is a pre-existing condition that deems you "reckless", you find yourself on a slippery slope.

 

[Greg YEAH!]

I don't think it was the pre-existing medical condition that made him reckless. Maybe him losing his tent to the wind and continuing on in worsening weather conditions is what they are considering reckless behavior. Any "experienced" hiker would think to head for safety in those conditions.

 

[Remix]

Then why bring up the medical condition in the report?

 

[Greg YEAH!]

Hiking with a fake hip prone to dislocation isn't risky behavior. Hiking with a fake hip prone to dislocation, in 70mph winds, in a torrential downpour is risky behavior. Lots of people hike with heart conditions but they don't try to run up Mount Washington. They know their limits. This guy apparently didn't know his, even though his hip went south on him five times previously.

Also, who cares about him. What about the people that had to put themselves at risk because of his irresponsible actions? That is why my opinion on the rescue fee is if you need rescued, or call for help and they dispatch a crew, then you should have to pay regardless of negligence. No argument, no court battle. But that is in another thread.

 

[jfb]

FWIW: http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.ne...ate's_Closing_Memorandum_--_unsigned_copy.pdf

 

[peakbagger]

I am curious after reading the court document if the $25 rescue card would have covered the rescue?

 

[hikerbrian]

Pheweeee, welcome to "grey-area land," ladies and gentlemen. No doubt this guy made some serious mistakes that few or none of us on this board would have made, but I'm glad I don't have to make the decision as to whether his behavior was "negligent."

Thanks to jfb and Barkingcat for posting some of the most detailed reports of any of the rescues we've read about. Some very interesting bits in there. A few points I found particularly interesting:

• He was 2 miles into a 5 mile day when he called for rescue. And it was the easy 2 miles. And it had already taken him 5 hrs.
• When he was found, he was relatively comfortable, warm and dry. Details of his shelter weren't presented, but hypothermia and/or exposure were not listed as any danger.
• He had slipped and fallen earlier in the day and slid down a short slope, which had knocked his tent from his pack. The tent fell down a ravine, and Mr. Bacon chose not to retreive it. Why? He was headed for Greenleaf hut, so I suppose he didn't "need" the tent, but at the very least he'd be out some money and an important piece of emergency gear. I can't think of a spot between Liberty Spring tentsite and the ridge that I wouldn't be able to easily retreive my tent. So why didn't he retreive his?
• He had made it to Liberty Spring tentsite without any problems. Wonder how he got there? Was gettign there harder than the day he had ahead of him?
• Weather was bad, but not horrific. Some inconsistency with how bad the wind was, but sounds like 70 mph on Washington (which would likely mean considerably less on Franconia Ridge) and rain. Uncomfortable, but not horrific.
• Mr. Bacon is described as short, overweight, on multiple medications, and with an artificial hip. My reflex is to say, "Know your limits." On the other hand, I know a couple of guys who are short and overweight and are pretty close to completing a grid. None of the "multiple medications" contributed to the accident or need for rescue. So that leaves artificial hip. Once again, I'm glad I don't have to make the "negligence" call.

 

[TJsName]

I am curious after reading the court document if the $25 rescue card would have covered the rescue?

I had the same thought - I wonder if/hope that F&G starts including this tidbit in their writes up to get an idea of what was covered.

Raven - you should run this scenario through the rubric to see what score he gets.

 

[jfb]

"The defendent's surgeon also opined that "...He knew the position of potential instability and knew how to avoid that position.""

Yet, it seems he did place his leg in that position after all.

 

[Raven]

Maybe he's doing it based on principal, but I would think paying lawyers to argue your case all the way to the state supreme court would cost more than then just paying the fine.

He sounds like a really stubborn guy which is probably why he's taking it to the courts. Suing the state will come next probably. This case may have some impact on the definition of negligence as it applies in NH S&R moving forward. Maybe moreso, I think the first case involving charging a hiker with a HikeSafe card with reckless behavior (and therefore not covering her) may be a bit of a landmark case when that first comes up. It wouldn't suprise me if a lawyer with some time took that one on for free.

I am curious after reading the court document if the $25 rescue card would have covered the rescue?

This guy made a few bad choices to say the least. Whether he made enough for negligence is the question, of course.

My early-on prediction is the state wins quickly and finds him negligent. I do not think he would be found reckless and therefore my understanding is that he would be covered by the card. The Closing Memorandum specifically goes for negligence. They may be able to prove that without even mentioning the hip condition.

If he loses and has to pay the state's legal fees which they are also going for, he may be out substantially more than $10,000 for a rescue.

Edit: incidentally, I would have fired Mr. Bacon's lawyer for having an absurd amount of typos in a legal document. For $300/hour or more, you can make sure your hired help proofread. A pure sign of sloppiness on something that important; they are doomed.

 

[Tuck]

He sounds like a really stubborn guy which is probably why he's taking it to the courts. Suing the state will come next probably. This case may have some impact on the definition of negligence as it applies in NH S&R moving forward. Maybe moreso, I think the first case involving charging a hiker with a HikeSafe card with reckless behavior (and therefore not covering her) may be a bit of a landmark case when that first comes up. It wouldn't suprise me if a lawyer with some time took that one on for free.



Edit: incidentally, I would have fired Mr. Bacon's lawyer for having an absurd amount of typos in a legal document. For $300/hour or more, you can make sure your hired help proofread. A pure sign of sloppiness on something that important; they are doomed.

And he cites the criminal standard for negligence not the civil standard. Fired!!