The bonehead who sent a chopper for someone with a sprained
ankle should be the one footing the bill. For risking the lives
of the medevac crew.

I guess I was thinking that this type of rescue activity was part of why I pay so darn much in taxes ... like paying for fire protection, law enforcement, and national defense.

I can see "repeat offenders" getting put on notice of some kind. I can also see requiring those who get rescued to attend some kind of related education (kind of like those who get speeding tickets around here), but a $25,000 fine to a teenager seems absurd.

I've just read all three articles which chronicle the events leading to his rescue and the view of the major in charge of the fish and game dept. that critiscised him for heading back up the mountain ,seems a little harsh when taken into context about the reason for heading back up to the observatory. Its easy to comment in the cold light of day and sat in a comfy chair but it appears that although he went off trail he had checked with the local experts that the potential routes were open(the lad stated that he knew the area). This does not seem negligent to me (going alone is another matter though) and it was only when he realised that the alternate route was dangerous that he headed to what he judged as the most likely chance of rescue (the observatory).

although the only source is the newspaper article the accounts do vary a bit,

"Mason was negligent in continuing up the mountain with an injury and veering off the marked path, Acerno said. Negligence, he said, is based on judging what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.

"When I twist my ankle, I turn around and come down. He kept going up," Acerno said."

According to the lad he did come down when he had a "light sprain", by the alternative route he had checked, only heading up when he realised it was blocked/dangerous - seems pretty reasonable in the circumstances.

Anyway - glad he is ok and hope the fine gets sorted.

I can see this coming... insurance companies rake in the money of coarse someone will offer something like this, probably a branch of an existing company.

Actually, the agency can prescribe the fine, but any agency decision can be appealed to a court of law (usually through an administrative process). There, the case gets decided much like a tort civil case, with agency acting as plaintiff. Judicial rules will decide the outcome. Most likely, the kid's lawyer will initiate an appeal process, and the agency will likely settle with a minimus fine and some volunteer activity for the defendant. The fine will probably be a couple thousand, and volunteer activity will probably be a weekend or some such. The agency does not get to be judge and jury. If the kid refused to pay the fine and didn't try to negotiate or anything (non-responsive), then the agency would seek summary judgement against him in a court of law and go after him that way.

No agency can levy an insurance premium. What they can do (as with vehicle licensing agencies) is not provide a permit unless proof of insurance is obtained, thus ensuring that inadvertant expenses arising from permitted use are covered by the permittee, or the one enjoying the privilege at their own risk and expense, and not that of the general public. It seems to have been working out well for the privilege of driving a personal vehicle. It does make people accountable, more or less, for their own actions, at least financially. The cost of premiums could then be incentivised by certificates of training, longevity without an incident, deductibles, etc.

Hello, we've already been charging for rescue services! Who do you think pays the bill everytime that chopper heads for the hills, or the fire truck or ambulance gets called out? There may be volunteers, but someone is footing the bill for the use of the equipment, supplies, training, etc. When my house burned to the ground in 94, those firetrucks showed up even though I didn't ask for them (I happened to be out of town at the time). Should we wait to provide services until requested by the victim? As I recall, there was a payout from my insurance to the fire department for some services as well, which my premium paid for. Hmm, that seems reasonable to me, even though they didn't manage to save a darned thing (That's not a sarcastic statement either. I am glad they showed up and did what they did, I thanked them for it when they were done, too).

If we are not as a society going to lay the expectation of accountability on the heads of those who take the risks, then we certainly need to require some financial responsibility if the costs get excessive and the risks (both real and litigious) of the rescuers keeps going up. Letting the government handle financial responsibility like that has never proven to be an effective model, and invites the worst cases of corruption our history has ever experienced. Allow the government to regulate it, but keep the financial remuneration at the private level so the corruption can be at least lessened. It may not be ideal, but few things in life are. The reality is that you can only expect your neighbor to keep footing the bill for your foolishness for so long before he gets real tired of being broke at your expense.

IMHO, if we are going to fine people for requiring rescue services, it seems that the people should have to be guilty of "reckless" behaviour, not merely negligent behavior.

Anytime that something goes pear-shaped, there are always a lot of lard-butt Monday morning quarterbacks who will opine that it was "negligent". Let's not let the bean-counters take over everything.

And, while we are on the subject, why isn't there the same level of indignation for non-wilderness "negligence" requiring rescue costs, such as people who run space heaters indoors during the winter and set their houses on fire?

"And, while we are on the subject, why isn't there the same level of indignation for non-wilderness "negligence" requiring rescue costs, such as people who run space heaters indoors during the winter and set their houses on fire?"

Ah, but there is. It's called homeowners insurance. I paid for mine and got what I paid for when my house burned down. I know some who didn't and were stuck paying on a big loan for a scorched piece of earth, inevitably filing bankruptcy. I know people who have late model autos and fail to pay their insurance premium then end up with a big loan payment on a heap in a junkyard, inevitably filing bankruptcy. I know people who buy term and invest the difference, thinking they'll get better returns on a mutual fund than an annuity, then watch their retirment go up in flames when the market collapses, inevitably going back to work when they could've retired.

"IMHO, if we are going to fine people for requiring rescue services, it seems that the people should have to be guilty of "reckless" behaviour, not merely negligent behavior."

As I said, fining people is not appropriate. The government has a propensity to abuse power and control like that. Requiring people to be financially responsible prior to taking the risk is entirely appropriate. That's the way life is in this day and age. No one gets it both ways, at least not for very long. The crooked and the inconsiderate might for a while, but eventually it will catch up with them too. Then when something extreme like this happens I am not terribly sympathetic, because I pay my own way when I go out to play.

Well, not every place uses volunteers. That in itself is a huge debate, esp. in fire/ems circles. Another small point of contention is that ambulances charge, but don't nessarily get paid. Just like those whopping hospital bills that send people spiraling into bankruptcy. As for the firefighters getting called out, one could argue that they're there to prevent the fire from spreading rather than save your property. You ever see a house fire with a good outcome? They're pretty rare.

I think the big sticking point here is was this kid negligent? I doubt it. Even if that guy in the paper said "he went up, I'd go down" well, is that guy and Eagle Scout? Is he in prime physical condition? I'm guessing he's probably in decent shape but middle age - so why is he allowed to pass judgement and call the kid negligent based on his own standards? If anything, what a normal person would do should be based on teens and early 20's people. It's ridiculous to apply a standard that would theoretically involve newborns through centaurians. Any normal 90 year old wouldn't go hiking, so does that make everyone in the backcountry negligent?

I wonder if all this hooplah and dissent would arise if the kid WASN'T and Eagle Scout? Would we be sad if those skiiers from this past winter (that no one noticed and subsequently one died) were charged?

[quote=MDinana
I think the big sticking point here is was this kid negligent? I doubt it. Even if that guy in the paper said "he went up, I'd go down" well, is that guy and Eagle Scout? Is he in prime physical condition? I'm guessing he's probably in decent shape but middle age - so why is he allowed to pass judgement and call the kid negligent based on his own standards? [/quote]

You have a valid point - was he negligent. I don't think you can use the Department person as the standard of negligence, and I doubt that is how they decided whether the kid actually acted with negligence. More likely some legal counsel consulted a standard of care for local hikers, particularly for local Mt Washington hikers, and found that the kid violated some local if not general understanding of reasonable care to take while hiking. I don't think being an Eagle Scout gives you any leeway - possibly being an active duty SEAL, which is much more akin to Chuck Norris. But Eagle as a Scouting rank should teach you caution around a mountain, to stop, think and then react. The better part of valor is to retreat from a dangerous mountain when injured. Basically I think they found his thought process lacking.

Someone else had a good point for discussion too, why not sue in the event of recklessness, [negligence is too low a standard.] Maybe so - although recklessness is a fairly high standard, and in New Hampshire I suspect a substantial portion of rescue costs could not be recovered only in cases of recklessness. I have a lot of sympathy for this kid, but I suddeenly have alot of sympathy for New Hampshire hikers in general. In the western US still we don't observe a standard of negligence or recklessness, we just send out folks to locate the poor miserable fools who get lost in the woods. And I hope that mind set never changes.

I would say it depends now on what the kid and his family decide to do. $25k makes it big enough to warrant hiring an atty and going to court, where the argument can be made. The agency made a decision most likely based on what the kid said to them as he was being rescued, which was likely very self-deprecating and judgemental to begin with. The agents most likely used that testimony and reached a conclusion that they could successfully apply their regulation. My guess is there's going to be some attempt to backpedal out of whatever was said at the time of rescue and make a more objective statement that will then give the agency a better out for a germane application of their rules. A penitent attitude will likely go a long ways towards settling this. A non-responsive attitude will only invite enforcement. I don't think even the agency really expects the kid or his family to pay the full pop.