I am afraid the idea of fining folks who make mistakes in the outdoors is a slippery slope (no pun intended) that we may regret going down. Obviously the Camels Hump group made some poor decisions, but were those decisions based on inexperience, ignorance or a total lack of concern about the consequences. People on this forum obviously have a greater understanding of the problems that can arise in the outdoors, but the general public is not as knowledgeable nor are they likely to become more knowledgeable if they are afraid of getting some horrendous fine for making a mistake. What's next imprisonment if the mistake is horrendous enough in the eyes of "officials?" Rather than encouraging the public to become better informed about the outdoors, I think fines and other punishments will have the opposite effect. Many simply won't bother with camping, hiking, or other outdoor activities because of the risk of punishment if something goes wrong.

Negligence:

"Negligence" is not the same as "carelessness", because someone might be exercising as much care as they are capable of, yet still fall below the level of competence expected of them. It is the opposite of "diligence". It can be generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from foreseeable risks of harm. In the words of Lord Blackburn,

"those who go personally or bring property where they know that they or it may come into collision with the persons or property of others have by law a duty cast upon them to use reasonable care and skill to avoid such a collision."..."For a defendant to be held liable, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained."..."A typical formula for evaluating negligence requires that a plaintiff prove the following four factors by a "preponderance of the evidence":

The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (or a duty to the general public, including the plaintiff);
The defendant violated that duty;
As a result of the defendant's violation of that duty, the plaintiff suffered injury; and
The injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's action or inaction.
For example, a person driving a car has a general duty to conduct the car in a safe and responsible manner. If a driver runs through a red light, the driver violates that duty. As it is foreseeable that running a red light can result in a car crash, and that people are likely to be injured in such a collision, the driver will be liable in negligence for any injuries that in fact result to others in a collision resulting from the running of the red light."

Based on this, I don't think it matters a whole lot how well prepared you are. If you go into a high risk environment and something goes wrong, then based on how the courts define negligence, you would be liable, especially if you drag a group of kids with you into it. It's all well and good to bring plenty of gear with you up the hill, but if you or someone in the group gets hit by lightning or otherwise injured, expect to get hammered for it, especially if you knew in advance that the conditions would be adverse.

This is a good discussion. Valid points on both sides.

I think I would be more hesitant to call for help if I thought there were a possibility that I'd get a $25k bill when I got home. If a life is lost because the person in trouble was afraid to call for help due to possible financial repercussions, where does the responsibility lie for the death?

Is that how you came to be known as "Blast"????

Todd W, you are correct. I didnt explain, and I agree 100% with what you said. I should have said "unprepared". T-storms in a tent are wonderful, and you are taking a certain risk being outside in ANY kind of weather. The point I wanted to make was that, seeing or knowing a storm is gonna roll in, and hking anyway, without ANY gear, is being negligent.

I agree with that.

I'd say with the person who took the initial risk. If you don't stop and think, "gee, if I do this, maybe I might get lost or hurt, am I adequately prepared, and willing to face the consequences if something does go wrong?" That's how most ventures in life go anyways.

I am really getting stuck on why the concept of responsibility for one's own actions is so elusive here. Surely people must realize that when they put themselves in a bad situation, they really only have themselves to blame for it. The availability/economy of independent aid should never be a factor in decision making of whether the risk is acceptable or not. That is illegitimately trying to convey the burden of responsibility onto someone with little/no vested interest in the outcome of your pursuit of happiness. Should you succeed and overcome the risk, they receive no benefit, so why on earth should they share in the blame for something they really have no say about in the first place, other than caveat emptor?

I would think an adventurer should be more hesitant to even consider taking an unnecessary risk if they are not prepared to face the worst reasonable outcome. The cost of rescue should not even be a deciding factor whether to go or not. If a life is lost because the person in trouble was unprepared, what difference does it make what the cost of rescue might be? They made a mistake. Cause and effect begins and ends with the person initiating the action.

Take any chance of independent rescue or aid out of the equation, then make the decision and any planning based on that limitation. Then you don't have to really worry too much about what it might or might not cost you.

This is a valuable discussion of an important topic that needs to be resolved.
I agree that the group should be fined. A fine in these instances is a "stupid-tax" that may help people think, plan and decide better next time. We recently had a young teenager from Alaska die in the Phoenix area from heat while hiking up a city park mountain. Sad, and so unnecessary.
Those who weigh the risks and are willing to take them, must be willing to accept the results if things go bad. Paying the bill for rescue is one of the results that are predictable, even if the odds are low.
The fire dept. analogy is a little off target. We support FD's by paying taxes, whether we use their services or not, because it's cheaper than paying all at once if we use them. If the fire is our fault, our homeowner's insurance may not cover the damage, and if arson, we'll go to jail and pay big fines. SAR does not usually receive direct tax funding, but are mostly volunteers supported by donations. We have no insurance, either, for mishaps in the wild. If we go out in the backcountry and make bad decisions, we should pay the bills of those that save our bacon.

I propose a new sign at all trailheads:

Proceed at your own risk, and have a good attorney on retainer, you just might need one.

They are trying to make examples of people - too many uniformed people going up into these mountains with little or no preparation.