[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.