Mount Madison Rescue

[TDawg]

Is there any kind of language documented (online or otherwise) stating what reckless would be? I guess I'm having a hard time agreeing that setting off to a closed hut and not turning around when they should have in winter conditions isn't reckless.

 

[sardog1]

Is there any kind of language documented (online or otherwise) stating what reckless would be? I guess I'm having a hard time agreeing that setting off to a closed hut and not turning around when they should have in winter conditions isn't reckless.

I've posted some revised commments above on this point. So far as I know, Fish & Game's (infrequent) application of the statute has not been tested in court by the subject of a SAR operation.

My own gut (from reviewing the few examples to date) tells me that before the hammer will come down on you, you'll have to (1) be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or (2) disregard a specific warning (e.g., an avalanche advisory, or an expert climber's warning not to proceed on your planned route because of conditions or your own inadequacies), or (3) claim to have special expertise and then consciously expose kids or other dependent party members to an unjustifiable risk of harm. NOBODY should take this for anything more than my personal opinion.

 

[TDawg]

Alright thanks, that makes sense.

 

[Dugan]

Did you see their ages? 19, 20 and 22....

Let's please not use age as an excuse. I was hiking and backpacking solo, and responsibly, at a few years younger than the youngest. I've seen discussions here of SAR and personal culpability for people much older than their 20's. Age (in either direction) does not equal a free pass from either responsibility or consequences.

 

[giggy]

no guns a jumpin - I think some of us were just having a bit of fun with the situation.

I do agree that age here is not an issue. People that age in uniform making much tougher decsions as we speak. I was in the army at 18 in 1990-91 making some myself.

 

[Mattl]

Remote compared to Conn.... Just shows what happens when people dont pay attention. -Mattl

 

[TDawg]

Let's please not use age as an excuse. I was hiking and backpacking solo, and responsibly, at a few years younger than the youngest. I've seen discussions here of SAR and personal culpability for people much older than their 20's. Age (in either direction) does not equal a free pass from either responsibility or consequences.

Well put, I was thinking the same earlier, but figured I'd let someone else older say it first. I'm only a year older than the oldest and have been going solo for a couple years now. Before that I had years of backpacking with my Dad drilling safety into my head. I'd expect to take full responsibility if I goofed up like these kids, age is no excuse.

P.S.-I like your avatar Dugan, pretty funny (not that your pup had to have surgery, but your comment).

 

[nartreb]

Is there any kind of language documented (online or otherwise) stating what reckless would be? I guess I'm having a hard time agreeing that setting off to a closed hut and not turning around when they should have in winter conditions isn't reckless.

Courts have an annoying tendency to redefine "reckless" to fit the particular situation, so you'd have to check whether this particular statute has ever been litigated. I think this one is new since 1999, so it may not have been. Also, as has been pointed out above, Fish & Game will make a first determination of whether they want to send a bill.

Hikers who may be billed include those who are poorly equipped for terrain or weather and/or lack reasonable skills or stamina to handle the hike without getting lost or injured.

So far they've been pretty restrained. If you ask a law professor, though, you'll be told that "reckless" usually means "knew or should have known that his conduct posed a substantial and unreasonable risk" of causing some serious result (in this case, "requiring a rescue"), and "wilfully or wantonly disregarded that risk".
Here's an example (discussing a criminal "reckless driving" law):

Essentially, the prosecution must show that reckless drivers were indifferent to the probable harmful results of their driving, and that the reckless drivers should have realized that such driving posed a hazard.

Edit: just noticed Sardog's quotation of a New Hampshire definition. That's from a criminal statute, whereas RSA 153 A24 mentions "liability", making it a civil statute. See A25, establishing this liability as akin to a contract liability. Under civil statutes you generally get a bit less emphasis on state of mind (ie, "should have known" is just as good as "is aware of"), and a "law-abiding person" standard isn't too relevant (you tend to see something like "customs and practice in the relevant community or profession"), but still it gives a pretty good flavor of it.

(c) "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the circumstances known to him, its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of having voluntarily engaged in intoxication or hypnosis also acts recklessly with respect thereto.

In any event it's a judgement call: the law doesn't mention maps, compasses, snowshoes... Nobody could write a law like that and cover every possible circumstance, so it's up to the judges if it comes to trial.

 

[Dugan]

P.S.-I like your avatar Dugan, pretty funny (not that your pup had to have surgery, but your comment).

Comment: Post-surgical Dugan says yes to drugs

<sigh> You try so hard to raise them right, and they just don't listen.

Oh wait a minute... that was "Say No To Bugs" that I was trying to teach him... those pesky ticks!

 

[jtremont]

Snow on South Presies

Does anyone know if the south peaks, Pierce, Jackson, and Webster still have snow pack?

 

[sardog1]

In any event it's a judgement call: the law doesn't mention maps, compasses, snowshoes... Nobody could write a law like that and cover every possible circumstance, so it's up to the judges if it comes to trial.

Actually, it's likely to be a jury question, not one for a judge. Juries routinely decide whether a defendant acted "recklessly" (albeit with instructions from judges), just as they decide the sort of contract liability adopted into the emergency response reimbursement statute. Although, if I'm a nonresident defendant facing the prospect of a homer jury on this sort of question, I might want to try to get it before a judge instead.

EDIT: For context on the weather situation last night, scroll through this thread Snow in The White Mountains Tonight! to coldmountain's mini-trip report.

 

[jade]

Actually, it appears the jury has already decided...

Do y'all remember when SherpaK had his nasty accident? People wanted to hang the poor person involved until it was discovered that it was really just a very unfortunate accident.....

I have compassion for these kids and I hope they take a workshop or two on hiking in the Whites and perhaps do some volunteer work with SAR...

...jade

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Actually, it appears the jury has already decided...

Do y'all remember when SherpaK had his nasty accident? People wanted to hang the poor person involved until it was discovered that it was really just a very unfortunate accident.....jade

Jade -

I think you made a couple of interesting points, especially your second.

The immediateness of the Internet allows us to express our initial emotions, in whatever raw, sometimes violent manner, they manifest, and for some those can be expressed in anonymity, depending on how much personal info they've disclosed previously. There are few, if any, of the usual mechanisms we use in civil society to maintain the 'proverbial even-keel'. There's an air of unreality as you type on a keyboard into virtual space, and as a society we haven't begun to define this medium, much less suggest acceptable methods of expressing strong emotions so that 'virtual lynchings' don't occur. Am not suggesting a 'virtual lynching' has occurred here, but for VFTT old-timers there have been periods when reports of mountain accidents resulted in quick condemnation of the hapless victim. For the past couple of years people have shown more restraint, IMHO.

Much fertile ground for many a potential masters and doctoral thesis. And, I'm not suggesting that VFTT is any more or any less susceptible to 'virtual lynchings'. Personally, I think they're part of the phenomenon of any online community once it reaches a certain member size, and it makes the job of the moderator(s) that much more difficult.

Anyway, am getting a bit far afield from 3 young men getting 'benighted'. Restraint, people, restraint ...

 

[Dugan]

I have compassion for these kids and I hope they take a workshop or two on hiking in the Whites and perhaps do some volunteer work with SAR...

...jade

Agreed. Perhaps a better solution to billing a party for the cost of a SAR, would be incorporate some sort of outdoor education course in addition to the fine. An ounce of prevention...

 

[forestgnome]

Glad they're ok; death was near them.

The one thing they did right is make the call.

The AP report doesn't tell us if they had lights. Without good light, I doubt many of us could make it down from Mt. Madison in those conditions.

If the sleeping bags were cheesy 40 degree type bags, then hypothermia was a real concern. The wind has been strong and steady here for days, and they were wet and tired.

Now we have three people who will tell their story many times over to others who may be planning a trip to the mountains.

 

[timmus]

Now we have three people who will tell their story many times over to others who may be planning a trip to the mountains.

Yeah, and what if they tell the story as if it was ''so cool'' that the others go out there and do the same stupid mistake ?

 

[Tuco]

What is somewhat ironic about this is that on Saturday when we returned to Rols car coming back down Airline to Appalachia there was a pamphlet on the windsield from hikeSafe.

You have to fugure that with an activity done in a public place like hiking, every once in a while somebody is going to wander into the wrong spot at the wrong time and it could be as they say because they may know enough just for it to be dangerous. (ie- I know there is a hut but not when it opens...)

 

[LivesToHike]

Await more info...

Since the only info we have is from an out-of-state newspaper, I for one am going wait until some additional facts from credible sources become available before passing judgement. ...

I agree. I'd also like to wait. I am thankful that these hikers got out alive.
I'd like to echo that it might be easy to overreact and later regret what was said.

Having been involved years ago in a recovery carry out (obviously not a good scene) and then hearing the news story afterwards, I found that the facts are often clipped or omitted by news sources in favor of deadlines and ad space.
Good information often travels slowly.

-- LTH

 

[forestgnome]

Yeah, and what if they tell the story as if it was ''so cool'' that the others go out there and do the same stupid mistake ?

Let's see...They didn't get to sleep in the hut. They got wet, tired and cold. They had to be escorted down the mountain. Hard to imagine that story being told as "so cool" as to entice others to hike unprepared, through wind and snow, without a tent, to a closed hut.

More likely their telling of the story would convey caution, which would be positive.

 

[giggy]

too much nicey nicey - "that a boy", don't worry about mistakes attitude here I would like to point out the "potential" mistakes. This doesn't sound like someone got injured or a plan went wrong, etc. - it sound like lack of planning and in over your head situation. sorry - but this is a discussion board - not a peer reviewed medical jounral. gonna voice my opinion

all I know is that when I was green with hiking years back, I continued to do many of the smaller peaks pierce, jackson, ike, franconia, monadnock, etc..etc.. until I was ready. Its also common knowledge that weather is a huge issue in the pressies.

I can only look back at what I did when I had less experience. I would have not done madison (or any other pressie) unless weather was forecasted to be be perfect. It wasn't last week/weekend. No secret of mix precip, cold rain, etc - perfect condtions for hypothermia.

yes - they did the right thing by calling becuase maybe it saved lifes, but lets look at what lead up to this.

no knowledge of spring white mountain weather - any basic hiking book talks of this danger in spring - esp in pressies.

disregard for weather forecast - no secret of rain/snow/mis with temps well below 50 for last week, weekend.

no planning - if there was planning - no attempt to stay at a closed hut would have been expected. no secret these huts are closed until later in the year.

maybe this post will help someone in the future.