NH Proposes Fee If People Need To Be Rescued

[sardog1]

The AAC rescue insurance has been increased recently--your old opinion might be out of date.

Doug

It's STILL not "rescue insurance" beyond some health and accident benefits and a possiible helicopter evac under specified conditions: Adventure Advocates Accident Insurance Protectionhttp://www.adventureadvocates.com/member-benefits/accident-insurance-protection

 

[Tim Seaver]

The decision to collect the funds would be subject to judicial review by a New Hampshire court. In fact, Fish and Game has no authority even to seize property or garnish any account or wages to collect the amount. The Attorney General would have to sue the party in question.

Thanks for that correction. Do you have any links for more reading on the process?

EDIT: All I can find is this:

What is the process for determining if a rescued person is billed?

All Search and Rescue Missions go through a review process involving guidelines established by the Attorney General's Office. That review process involves the mission's supervisor, the N.H. Fish and Game Department Administration, and lastly a review by the N.H. Attorney General's Office for a final concurrence. All cases are unique and not all will get billed.

It still sounds like the F&G is making the call, and just sending it through for approval. Shouldn't those "guidelines" be public?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

You might try NH RSA206:26, especially XII and bb of http://gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/xviii/206/206-mrg.htm which references

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/153-A/153-A-24.htm - liability for negligence
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/X/126-A/126-A-20.htm - NH state assisted living
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XI/151/151-7.htm - NH state assisted hospital
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/263/263-56.htm - driver's license suspension

As a parenthetical remark, all that is really new this time around is the sliding-scale fee, which I know had been discussed last year at this time - I heard about the idea personally from our resident hiker and NH state senator Jeb Bradley.

Tim

 

[Tim Seaver]

Thanks, Tim. All I could find so far, using "rescue" as a search term, was this, but nothing on how negligence is determined other than stating that F&G determines it:

Section 206:26-bb
206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery. –
I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department's expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.
II. If any person fails to make payment under paragraph I, the executive director of the fish and game department may:
(a) Order any license, permit, or tag issued by the fish and game department to be suspended or revoked, after due hearing.
(b) Notify the commissioner of the department of health and human services of such nonpayment. The nonpayment shall constitute cause for revocation of any license or certification issued by the commissioner pursuant to RSA 126-A:20 and RSA 151:7.
(c) Notify the director of motor vehicles of such nonpayment and request suspension of the person's driver's license pursuant to RSA 263:56.

Source. 2008, 167:2, eff. June 6, 2008.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

... but nothing on how negligence is determined other than stating that F&G determines it:

I though it was that oddly-name official - "A. Reasonable Person"

The definition of negligence has long been a sticking point for me.

What is ambiguous in this article is whether or not the state will charge $350-$1000 for ALL rescues, negligent or not. If they only include the ones currently billable, then they are going to have an even harder time recovering costs. The article includes a one-liner:

The state does not bill for rescues if an investigation finds no negligence.

but that appears after the bit on the original 2008 law. The comments attributed to Jeb Bradley seem to be targeted at unprepared people... but it is still being drafted.

Tim

 

[sardog1]

Thanks, Tim. All I could find so far, using "rescue" as a search term, was this, but nothing on how negligence is determined other than stating that F&G determines it:
If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph.

The Executive Director sends a bill. The Attorney General tries to get the target of the bill to pay with the usual strongly worded letter(s). If that doesn't happen, the AG goes to court and tries to establish negligence before a judge or jury. "Negligence" is a concept that is litigated on a daily basis by courts in NH and all over this country. F&G and the AG don't get to define it. The court defines its legal meaning for a jury, if it gets that far. Then the finder of fact (judge or jury) matches the facts against the definition and decides whether the defendant was negligent.

BTW, if I were a defendant who was from "away", I'd think long and hard before putting my fate in the hands of a local jury on this one. Might be one of those occasions to waive a jury trial right and put it solely to a judge.

 

[MichaelJ]

(c) Notify the director of motor vehicles of such nonpayment and request suspension of the person's driver's license pursuant to RSA 263:56.

Anyone know if reciprocity gets involved here if one is from out of state? Or if an out-of-stater's privilege to drive in NH can be revoked *in this situation, under this law* ?

 

[Maddy]

Anyone know if reciprocity gets involved here if one is from out of state? Or if an out-of-stater's privilege to drive in NH can be revoked *in this situation, under this law* ?

I don't know if this relates exactly to what you are asking but NH does have reciprocity with MA. IF you get a speeding ticket in NH it counts in MA and you will have to pay the surcharges. I just read on the web that most states do.

 

[MichaelJ]

I was more curious if NH would/could ask MA to withhold renewal of my license or registration, or if this law allows for NH to revoke my right to drive in NH.

 

[Maddy]

I was more curious if NH would/could ask MA to withhold renewal of my license or registration, or if this law allows for NH to revoke my right to drive in NH.

I thought that might be what you were getting at.
I would think it might apply otherwise only NH residents would bear the real burden of the punishment. The rest of us could just drive around scott free while they are doomed to hike to work and stay in the house. Some could conceivably lose their jobs if they cannot get a ride to work. That would seem very unfair and prejudicial to the hikers who live in NH.

 

[Mac]

$10K bill for rescued BC (Canada) Snowboarder:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...12/19/bc-snowboarder-search-bill-boucher.html

 

[MichaelJ]

$10K bill for rescued BC (Canada) Snowboarder:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...12/19/bc-snowboarder-search-bill-boucher.html

Cypress is a ski area and he went out-of-bounds. He claims that he missed the fences/ropes/signs, but also admits to being highly distracted due to learning some personally tragic news. Being a customer of a ski area and leaving the area boundaries is, to me, a different situation than hiking in the National Forest, which does not have such in-bounds out-of-bounds delineations.

 

[RoySwkr]

Cypress is a ski area and he went out-of-bounds... Being a customer of a ski area and leaving the area boundaries is, to me, a different situation than hiking in the National Forest, which does not have such in-bounds out-of-bounds delineations.

What if the out of bounds area is National Forest?

“Read this,” one sign read in all capital letters. “Ski Area Boundary. Minimum of $1000.00 rescue fee!
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...slide-15RB/AVIE_HikeUp-slide-15RB-custom2.jpg

 

[Maddy]

They don't mess around do they?
Holding firm to their decision!

 

[bikehikeskifish]

What is ambiguous in this article is whether or not the state will charge $350-$1000 for ALL rescues, negligent or not. If they only include the ones currently billable, then they are going to have an even harder time recovering costs. The article includes a one-liner:

The state does not bill for rescues if an investigation finds no negligence.

but that appears after the bit on the original 2008 law. The comments attributed to Jeb Bradley seem to be targeted at unprepared people... but it is still being drafted.

Tim

I spoke with Jeb over the past week, and his story jives with this one I heard today on NHPR, the proposed bill is to charge EVERYONE $350-$1000. There is an $18 "hiker safery card" to cover you in case something goes wrong, or, you will be covered if you participate in any of the current annual funding mechanisms (hunting/fishing license, registered OHRV/boat, etc.)

http://www.nhpr.org/post/bill-proposes-mandatory-fines-all-hiker-rescues

Tim

 

[JCarter]

From the article:

Hikers could avoid being charged for their rescue by purchasing a newly-created $18 Hiker safety card that’s good for a year.

And the proposed rescue fines wouldn’t apply to anyone with a current NH hunting or fishing license, or who had registered their snowmobile, ATV or boat with the state.

Ok, so it's a "flatlander fine", because obviously anyone who doesn't have one of the above doesn't live in NH. And they don't have to worry about that pesky "negligence" thing any more if they just charge everyone. But the amount is an order of magnitude too low to pay the bills, so expect the amount to go up dramatically once this is in place.

But on the flip side, for $18 and a cell phone call, I don't need to actually prepare for my hikes any more. All that emergency gear that's been slowing me down can stay home. (sarcasm mode off)

 

[roadtripper]

This whole thing makes me sick. NH's general fund should handle this because without MA visitors and MA residents w/2nd homes, NH's economy would be in tough shape.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I spoke with Jeb over the past week, and his story jives with this one I heard today on NHPR, the proposed bill is to charge EVERYONE $350-$1000. There is an $18 "hiker safery card" to cover you in case something goes wrong, or, you will be covered if you participate in any of the current annual funding mechanisms (hunting/fishing license, registered OHRV/boat, etc.)

http://www.nhpr.org/post/bill-proposes-mandatory-fines-all-hiker-rescues

Tim

OK, I willing to do that. But where does one get that $18 card?

 

[Tim Seaver]

It might be worth fleshing out the differences between what is being proposed for NH, and the current system used in Colorado ( CORSAR card).

Two things that stand out right away are:

1. In Colorado, buying a card is voluntary, whereas in NH, no card (or NH lisc.), you pay.
2. You can pay annually in CO, $3 a year, but no such option in NH - the full $18 or nothing.

( and please correct me if I am wrong)

Personally I think using a voluntary model would go over MUCH better, and if done in a away that appealed to people's better side, would possibly be more successful at bringing in $$$$.

I still don't think the specter of being charged for rescue will bode well for NH in the long run, but in any case, I got my $18 ready.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Another question, is the "$18 dollar card" going to be "$18" for non residents or will it like the other licences be much higher?