Hiker to be Charged for Rescue

[ChrisB]

Looks like this 70-year-old hiker will be fined in addition to paying for a night at the Mt Washington Omni.

He must have had quite an exhausting day during this misadventure!

cb

 

[Puma concolor]

Wow.

Back when I was in law enforcement, we used to do crazy things like check hotels and hospitals when searching for people instead of just assuming the worst.

Maybe F&G should be fining themselves instead.

(Edit: Well, apparently F&G and the hotel made contact with each other at some point, ending the search, but it’s unclear in the article who reached out to whom.)

 

[peakbagger]

http://www.unionleader.com/safety/Fish-and-Game-to-bill-overdue-hiker-found-in-hotel-05012018

It will be interesting to see if he appeals the charges under the approach that he did not request a rescue.

Having been in the situation long ago where my friends spouse called F&G when we were late from a long hike, even though he had told her that we would be getting out real late, I can see the hikers argument. Luckily someone in the loop called AMC and they contacted the winter caretaker at Zealand Hut who confirmed that we had come through the hut on the way out and would be coming out late.

 

[Nessmuk]

Wow.

Back when I was in law enforcement, we used to do crazy things like check hotels and hospitals when searching for people instead of just assuming the worst.

Maybe F&G should be fining themselves instead.

(Edit: Well, apparently F&G and the hotel made contact with each other at some point, ending the search, but it’s unclear in the article who reached out to whom.)

Somehow I don't think NY law enforcement and SAR authorities are expected to check every hotel between here and Sacramento regarding the recent Whiteface incident.

https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/missing-skier

 

[Puma concolor]

^^^^

Substantial difference in the dynamics of the two cases.

One is a guy who appears to have engineered his own disappearance, the other is a guy in a hotel at an obvious bail out point.

Nonetheless, NY didn’t charge and I have full confidence that my former agency checked all nearby hotels as part of that investigation/search.

 

[Nessmuk]

The dynamics may have been different, but certainly high expense and the considerable effort were expended for substantially similar processes in both cases. No, NY does not charge for misguided, misinterpreted, foolish activity, or frivolous SAR incidents (yet).

 

[skiguy]

The State will have to prove negligence which in this case IMO will be difficult. This gentleman acted in logical way including to attempt contacting a family member of his whereabouts after exiting the woods. Yes technology failed him but to say that was his responsibility to insure the message went through is a stretch.

 

[ChrisB]

The State will have to prove negligence which in this case IMO will be difficult. This gentleman acted in logical way including to attempt contacting a family member of his whereabouts after exiting the woods. Yes technology failed him but to say that was his responsibility to insure the message went through is a stretch.

I can't vouch for his mental processes, but he sure was tough old buck physically.

I mean he basically did a one day winter Presi Traverse without being up on the ridge!! From Appalachia up Adams and Jeff, down Caps Ridge to Jefferson Road to Cog Base Road to Hotel on Rt 302.

I would have gone to bed after that little jaunt myself. Sheesh!

But hiking solo, not filing a flight plan with the missus, and not making sure anyone knew he was OK before he crashed was not too cool.

I kinda like the guy though. An imperfect and fallible sort of role model for all us 70-year-olds dogs.

cb

 

[CaptCaper]

Doesn't the Mt. Washington Resort have phones to use? odd duck..

 

[egilbe]

I want to know if they called his cell phone at all? He had a cell phone, right?

 

[iAmKrzys]

I want to know if they called his cell phone at all? He had a cell phone, right?

This is excellent point - leaving a voicemail and sending a text message should nowadays be part of the playbook. Another thing that I am wondering about is whether he had a car? If so, then if the car was not parked at any trailheads that could mean that the hiker was either off the mountain or someone else drove his car away. While the latter possibility cannot be dismissed, not being able to find a car could speed up search in alternate locations. All of this is just pure speculation as F&G likely have done these checks and we just don't know enough of the story.

 

[yogi]

This article explains it much better. Including where his car was found (Pinkham Notch).

http://www.nh1.com/news/new-hampshi...ing-massachusetts-hiker-found-at-luxury-hotel

 

[Mike P.]

So, he took a cab or uber over to Appalachia and then went as far as Jefferson before bailing. He took a steep trail down away from his car down to a closed road and then to Base Road. Does not seem to indicate whether he got a ride or walked to the Hotel, several miles away.

Assuming he had a headlamp and conditions did not warrant getting off the ridge pronto, he would have been much better off going to the tracks then the road and descending the Auto Road as far as Old Jackson Road and staying at Joe Dodge Lodge If conditions were bad, he should have descended back to Appalachia or Lowe's

Thinking something's still missing.

 

[sierra]

Any 2 bit lawyer could fight this charge. He was not rescued. He called or messaged his wife, somehow she didn't get the message. Kudo's to this guy, if you bag a hike, you might as well go big hotel wise.

 

[skiguy]

I can't vouch for his mental processes, but he sure was tough old buck physically.

I mean he basically did a one day winter Presi Traverse without being up on the ridge!! From Appalachia up Adams and Jeff, down Caps Ridge to Jefferson Road to Cog Base Road to Hotel on Rt 302.

I would have gone to bed after that little jaunt myself. Sheesh!

But hiking solo, not filing a flight plan with the missus, and not making sure anyone knew he was OK before he crashed was not too cool.

I kinda like the guy though. An imperfect and fallible sort of role model for all us 70-year-olds dogs.

cb

I agree with most of what your saying. I think most of us here would have taken more effort to make assured contact with someone else than this individual did. Although the burden of proof is going to be on the State. So far in these cases there does not seem to be real clear and consistent guidelines for hikers wether they are negligent or not. Of course we have had IMO some real clear cut cases but this one could fall into the grey area.

 

[Puma concolor]

I agree with most of what your saying. I think most of us here would have taken more effort to make assured contact with someone else than this individual did.

I dunno.

Negligence is a legal state of mind and must be defined by the totality of the circumstances. In this case, the circumstances are that he was basically drop-dead tired somewhere deep into the evening after what amounts to an epic self-rescue.

AND he is 70 years old and text messaging (and waiting until he sees “sent”) isn’t exactly hard-wired into his psyche.

He sends the message and then goes to bed in the state of mind he was in. To say anything in this circumstance comes anywhere close to “negligent” is a pretty far stretch.

 

[jfb]

He wasn't home by the time he told his wife he'd be home. She did the right thing. He should apologize to SAR and pay the bill.

 

[skiguy]

I dunno.

Negligence is a legal state of mind and must be defined by the totality of the circumstances. In this case, the circumstances are that he was basically drop-dead tired somewhere deep into the evening after what amounts to an epic self-rescue.

AND he is 70 years old and text messaging (and waiting until he sees “sent”) isn’t exactly hard-wired into his psyche.

He sends the message and then goes to bed in the state of mind he was in. To say anything in this circumstance comes anywhere close to “negligent” is a pretty far stretch.

Absolutely agree. Just my reason for posting that IMO it will be difficult to prove negligence. Or does he just get charged for the sake of reimbursement. Now we are talking liability. Again it seems that the handrails for determining hikers behavior within the realm of rescues seems to have a ways to go regarding responsibility and it’s potential for litigation.

 

[Raven]

I don't see negligence ever proven here. Tough situation when a host of S & R personnel go out on a goose chase. The optics are terrible for everyone when it happens and feathers understandably get ruffled. You can hear the collective WTF and associated eye roll from the team when they heard the guy is found at the local 5 Star hotel. A 4-digit donation and a gracious public apology for wasted time and effort would go a long way in mending that. I see no way a court awards it though. Saying he could have done things better is a far cry from negligence. Kudos to the searchers who went out after him thinking they were rescuing a guy in need with a medical condition. Sucks for everyone but it was only wasted time in the end. Glad no one was injured on either end.

 

[jfb]

More detail here: https://www.conwaydailysun.com/news...cle_6bdecb66-47d4-11e8-abb0-4f7ba890ab80.html