Lost back country skier sues SAR for taking too long

[billski]

It's a shame that the plaintiff can willy-nilly name all parties in the suit, and then the defendants must spend money to prove their innocence. I should not say this in a public forum, but I cringe and fear the day when discussion groups like this get named for providing bad advice. Time for webmasters to review their user agreements. The time will soon come that I'm afraid to suggest anything hiking related. Sad. Real Sad.

 

[Peakbagr]

"but I cringe and fear the day when discussion groups like this get named for providing bad advice."

Both the Board and the person providing the advice. Matter of time.

 

[Craig]

-Update Today-

After meeting with B.C. Search and Rescue Association executives at the legislature Wednesday, Heed said there are “interim” measures that can be taken and ministry staff are working on several options to make sure search and rescue teams aren’t held liable for their actions.

Heed would not specify what protection is in place, or what new measures are being considered. Currently the province provides liability insurance for search crews as long as they are on an assignment registered with the Provincial Emergency Program. This generally takes place when they are called out by police or fire departments.

 

[Chip]

"but I cringe and fear the day when discussion groups like this get named for providing bad advice."

Both the Board and the person providing the advice. Matter of time.

My Disclaimer is available free of charge for anyone who would like to copy it.

 

[Stash]

My Disclaimer is available free of charge for anyone who would like to copy it.

You need a much smaller font.

 

[Nif]

I read this a couple of weeks ago and had to really chuckle at. His disclaimer is BEAUIFUL. Laughed my butt off when I read it, this guy had an amazing sense of humor!!!

This was part of a memorial thread that was started to honor and remember the man who wrote it, he had died in a car crash. If you scroll down sum on the post that the link below goes to you get to his disclaimer about a route map he had posted. It's long but it truly and reflects the possiblitity of the sad state of affairs Peakbagr is referring to.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=883471&msg=883473#msg883473

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... It's long but it truly and reflects the possiblitity of the sad state of affairs Peakbagr is referring to.

Perhaps one way to avoid being named in a lawsuit is to develop the habit of saying "this is what I do", "when I got up that route I", etc - make it very personal, and emphasize this is YOU handle the situation, but that it may not work for anyone else, and that you would never presume to suggest what others might do.

It's a bit dodgey, but it might avoid situations where someone could say "I did it because you told me to".

 

[DrJJFate]

Perhaps my auto-signature will include the following:

DISCLAIMER: My advice may result in injury or death

Concise and accurate.

 

[J.Dub]

You need a much smaller font.

"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away." --Tom Waits

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

Perhaps the next lost skiier who has to wait because the S&R team shut down can sue the plaintiff in this case for causing said shutdown...

 

[Paradox]

My Disclaimer is available free of charge for anyone who would like to copy it.

I got carpal tunnel syndrome while doing just that, I'm gonna sue!

 

[Peakbagr]

"I don't understand why law suits such as these aren't thrown out of court sooner...... ???? Isn't that a judge's job? Sometimes it seems as if the whole system is rigged for ambulance chasers to scavenge off of."

Freddy - Years passed for interviews, deposing of witnesses, offers to settle, offers refused by Outing Club. When the 'injured' got tired of the NOs, went to trial and it got tossed. I wanted to countersue for frivolous lawsuit and was overruled.

 

[TomD]

Most forums are immune from suits like the one suggested above. The poster may not be. See the CDA (Communications Decency Act).

As far as "Good Samaritan" laws, here in CA, a passenger in a car was held liable for injuries she caused a passenger in another car that had wrecked in front of them. The people all knew each other and she ran to the car and yanked the woman out of it, causing paralysis due to her other injuries.

As for the skiers, I'm a lawyer and I think the suit is BS. SAR is dangerous business. A friend of mine was killed in a helo crash while looking for a lost hiker, two other people were also killed. I'm an old leftie and not one of those "every man for himself" people, but still, why do people assume they have a right to be rescued at all? Who guarantees that? If anyone does, they are out of their minds.

Resort immunity is a different theory-assumption of the risk in a sports setting. CA has such a law. As I recall, the only time a resort can be held liable is if it is grossly negligent for doing something totally unexpected-like parking a SnoCat around a blind corner on a run or having employees working while under the influence and screwing up lift operations.

 

[andrewb]

I thought I had seen it all, then this story. Yes, it's tragic - and several mistakes were made. However, the FIRST mistake was when this couple got in over their heads. If this trip was well-planned and executed, I argue there would have been no tragedy. Was a topo map carefully consulted before heading out? Was the map and a compass brought along?

I would generally not be critical of someone who got lost, because, frankly it could happen to any one of us. I recognize that I could die in the mountains and take responsibility for myself. I plan things out, carry extra gear, and think before acting.

The difference here is this person expected to be bailed out by someone else when in trouble. Why not assess the situation before it's a crisis? Realize rescue is a last resort at best and may not even ever happen at all. The nerve of him to file suit - regardless of the particulars of failed / late starts - still makes me shake my head and lose just a little more faith in humanity. Why does he think he alone is entitled to heaping bags of money, while countless other people the world over suffer endlessly? .....

 

[Breeze]

billski wrote
"
It's a shame that the plaintiff can willy-nilly name all parties in the suit, and then the defendants must spend money to prove their innocence. I should not say this in a public forum, but I cringe and fear the day when discussion groups like this get named for providing bad advice. Time for webmasters to review their user agreements. The time will soon come that I'm afraid to suggest anything hiking related. Sad. Real Sad.

Billski, I think you've had a close " come to God" call of your own since you posted in this thread. FWIW, I'm all about taking any advice of yours concerning Mahoosuc Notch, even it if is "hardhat recommended".

Breeze

 

[sardog1]

Consequences from B.C. lost skiers suit

Here are some consequences from the B.C. lost skiers suit:

N.S. volunteer search and rescue groups want better insurance protection
(CP) – Oct 19, 2009
HALIFAX, N.S. — Nova Scotia's volunteer search and rescue groups say they may be forced to withdraw emergency services if they can't get better insurance protection.
The association said in a news release Monday that volunteer searchers need good liability insurance to protect themselves, and they're asking the provincial government for assistance.
At a meeting of the Nova Scotia Ground Search and Rescue Association on Sunday, directors of 24 provincial teams voted to give notice they will withhold services if their concerns on insurance aren't resolved by the provincial government in two weeks.

link to whole story

They've been heard loud and clear --

Province will pay insurance for search and rescue teams

Thu. Oct 29 - 4:46 AM
The province will pick up the insurance tab of ground search and rescue organizations, Emergency Management Minister Ramona Jennex said Wednesday.

link to rest of story

 

[SAR-EMT40]

The latest in this saga.

Blackburn is suing the RCMP, the resort and the search-and-rescue association over his wife's death. Their two sons are also seeking compensation through the courts.

In statements of defence filed recently, all defendants said they acted reasonably, were not negligent and were not responsible for the death.

The defendants also said Fortin and Blackburn contributed to their own misfortune by going out of bounds without being prepared, and by failing to tell anyone where they were going. The RCMP document says that, at one point, the couple was within walking distance of a cabin in which to take shelter.

The resort also argues it's protected by the terms and conditions of the "exclusion of liability" on the tickets sold to Blackburn and Fortin on Feb. 15, and on signs posted at the ticket office and other spots in the ski area.

According to the statement of defence, the RCMP's decision not to initiate a search on Feb. 21 was reasonable, given the information they had at the time.

Link to the rest of the story

Keith

 

[Gris]

Hmmm

LOT of mistaken assumptions here. A good judge WILL throw out a lawsuit like this. OTOH, any lawyer who runs up a $600,000 bill to defend a case like this should be shot. It's not rocket science.

The courts SHOULD be open for everyone. Courts are our great equalizer.

Don't blame the 'legal system.' Blame the people who run it.

 

[TomD]

That's part of the Good Samaritan protection. If you are trying to help you can't be held liable if a mistake occurs. It's presumed, I guess, that more good than harm will generally occur and that it's worth the risk to try to help.

Not always true. In California in a recent case, a woman who helped pull a friend from a car wreck was held liable for further injuries caused when she pulled her from the car without realizing the woman had suffered a broken neck or back.

In California, the rule is there is no duty to give aid, but if you do, you must exercise due care. CA's "good Samaritan" law applies only if you are giving "medical aid" which can be narrowly defined. A broader rule applies to marine accidents under a different code section.

No idea what the law is in Canada, so no comment on that one.

 

[TomD]

"but I cringe and fear the day when discussion groups like this get named for providing bad advice."

Both the Board and the person providing the advice. Matter of time.

Owner of boards such as this one are protected by the Communciations Decency Act of 1996. In general, no site owner liability for third party content.

See article linked here:
http://lawyers.martindale.com/internet-law/article_Ervin-Cohen-Jessup-LLP_300518.htm?PRV=OOS