http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533641,00.html


CONCORD, N.H. — A Massachusetts teenager who spent three nights alone on Mount Washington in April after he sprained an ankle and veered off marked trails has been fined more than $25,000 for the cost of his rescue.






Ouch.

Negligent, right?

What is amazing is how selective the .gov is applying the label "negligent".


Welfare mom that smokes putting her kid with asthma in the hospital repeatedly?
No prob with that. But let an Eagle scout twist his ankle and make the wrong decision on the trail? $25K fine.

Exactly.

Our gov working "Together".

Let us just remember not to get all political all over this story.

From the story:
"Mason has until August 9 to pay the bill; he could also take the state to court to contest the fine."

For me I hope they do put this before a judge and he strikes it down. It seems like a patently unfair application of the concept of negligence.

It seems in my experiance on this forum, it is only polic

It seems to be deemed political on this forum if you are on the
wrong side of the issue.

Touche

Sounds a little harsh, especially when considering this story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8155398.stm

I'm not willing to even go that far. I don't want someone who may be in real trouble deciding not to activate a PLB because of concerns with financial consequences. If we start acting like Monday morning quarterback on each rescue, its very easy to find some form of "negligence" involving each victim.

I think PLBs present a great opportunity to save lives. However, they have not yet been widely accepted. New, lower cost PLBs are going to help. But tying a financial liability to it will turn people off and send them to an inferior device that might have some type of rescue insurance attached to it.

Its not perfect, but I look at each rescue as a training opportunity and I've never even thought about punishing someone who may have stupidly gotten themselves into trouble.

Craig.

I think it's a very very fine line myself... to charge, or not.

This is how I handle it here in Colorado:

http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/fa/sar/sar_purchase.html

Well, this is just great. Now people are not going call for help because they're afraid of devastating fines.

"Hi, I'm a park ranger and I'm here to help you."

Kid shouldn't get fined. But that my opinion.

But look in Arizona we have a law called Stupid Motorist Law, if you drive through a barricaded flooded wash and get stuck you get a ticket and a big fine.

But if your (most likely) an out of state tourist and not used to our heat, climb a extremely difficult but well maintained mountain trail in city limits without water and get a heat injury that needs med evac, your good to go.

I think someone who is woefully unprepared for the environment they enter should be fined before an accident.

This is an emotive issue here in the UK, some people are calling for people to have insurance to cover rescues, the government often talks about it. But, thankfully Mountain Rescue and many other groups resist the idea despite the many silly call they get to help people off the mountains just because they are tired.

I feel that if insurance companies where involved the cost of rescues would go up by a lot of money and that the mountain rescues teams would be working on the insurers behalf and on their rules. A mountain rescue team may justify walking a tired 70 year old off a mountain but think its a waste of resources to walk a 20 something year old of just because he is tired: an insurance company could sue both for wasting the teams time.

RAF and Navy S&R helos fly their missions as real life training missions and the MOD resist charging for the service because if they were not saving lives they would still be flying training missions to rescue dummies and people playing casualties. Their primary role is the S&R of downed air crew and military personnel and assisting civilian S&R is their secondary role and provides valuable training.

I know i have moved away from the original post some what, but my view is that if in the US a S&R is carried out for a genuine case then people should not be charged: but we are not often privy to all the facts and the press distorts the available facts.

In this case it is said that the lad carried on after sustaining an injury, yet he was praised for using his Eagle Scout skills. In my mind this is the issue, one has a duty of care for themselves and the advise is clear, if you are injured or the conditions change don't press on, turn around and go back. This is true for any outdoor activity and i am sure is one taught by Eagle Scouts. This is the first skill anyone should employ in a situation. This lad did not use his skills until he had closed all the options to himself, he made the classic mistake.

Does that justify a $25,000 fine, not in my book but then i live in the UK where things are different and if I came and played in the US i would have to have travel insurance which would cover this sort of thing. If i lived in the US my feeling maybe slightly different, but it still would not justify a $25,000 fine, i would also be asking the Government why S&R have to rely on local helicopters often privately owned and of the good will of the pilots. The military and national guard could make available helos for S&R as part of their training.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the negligence -- all things considered, a $25K fine is crazy. He did good except for leaving the trail that was clear when he took his self-rescue "shortcut". More likely to find help on a trail.

He should take this to court and let a jury decide. He can explain to them what he did and why, and let them determine his negligence.

I think I'll start leaving a note with my intended route, "I don't know when I'll be back and neither do you, so don't send SAR."

Perhaps I should quit leaving info on my intended route altogether and instead leave a note that says, "Gone to Europe. Be Back Later."

I appreciate SAR for what they do, but I myself just can't afford it. Having said that, I'm not going to stop enjoying the outdoors to become one of those people that hikes around the mall for exercise either.

So, is there any way to ensure that Search and Rescue is not called if I go missing? I don't need anyone to save my life so that somebody can ruin it for years to come. I'll take my chances on self rescue. I understand that I'm taking my life into my own hands.

If charging for rescue is the new trend, I can also save some money by not having to purchase a PLB... Even though it might drastically cut an SAR bill by being able to locate me more quickly...

Or maybe you get the PLB just in case you change your mind at the very last minute... LOL

The biggest objection I have to this fine issue is the fact that many folks involved in search and rescue are volunteers. They don't get reimbursed or rewarded, all the money seems to find itw way into government coffers to be squandared on studying the effects of household mites on the elastic of a woman's brassiere.

There are many volunteers who are offended by this billing issue as well, and rightfully so.

$25K is a bit excessive for what he did. Maybe a $500 fine or something like that, a fine that's appropriate for his actions and ability to pay. $25k is a year at college for him.

I generally support the idea of fines for stupid actions that require your rescue (ie. the idiots on Garibaldi who intentionally went OB while skiing) but this was a bit much.

In a similar article I read this morning, a drunk vacationer went out to the dock, dropped off his clothes and jewelry and swam out to a boat where he then fell asleep. The locals thought somebody had committed suicide and sent out the rescue team. He shows up a few hours later to clarify that he wasn't dead, just drunk and a bit stupid. No charges, no fines.

One of the hardest things to understand is why people keep moving once they know/suspect they're lost.

Maybe there should be a big advertising push on STOPPING. Stop when you think you're lost, and no fine. Keep going, get out the calculator.

It wouldn't be such a big issue if there weren't no many fools out there with poor judgment.

Was SAR requested by family/friends? If yes, then maybe a BILL, paid directly to the SAR group and others directly involved, but not a FINE paid to the government. If SAR was not requested, then who is the government to decide to fine him? Don't you have to break some law in order to get fined? What law did he break? Negligence against others that causes them harm - maybe. But negligence against yourself? What law prohibits that? We all do stupid things to ourselves on occassion and don't get fined for it.

If SAR responded out of the kindness of their hearts - which they probably did - then they could send him a bill, but if he or his family did not request SAR involvement, I can't see how the bill would be a legal obligation. Where it me, I'd try to pay what I could (to the SAR group - not the government!), but would consider my paying to be out of the goodness of my heart, just like the rescue effort was for the SAR folks. I would resist paying any government fine unless it were shown that I broke some kind of law.

Here is the pertinent part of the New Hampshire law:

RSA 206:26-bb (2009)

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.
............

It would be interesting to know how they arrived at exactly $25,000 for the expenses they incurred in this rescue. Not $21,479 or 24,223, but exactly $25,000. Probably sounded like a nice round BIG number to make their point rather for actual reimbursement of their costs. The kid should request an itemized list of their expenses. Simply put, the State is imposing a fine on this kid, and it has absolutely nothing to do with reimbursement of any expenses!

Well, so far, I've always managed to get myself unlost, eventually. I think being an outdoors-person requires a degree of self reliance, and generally consider it to be a virtue. But, as you say, it's a matter of judgment, or lack thereof.

Other than for children, I'd be hesitant to over-promote some sort of official "stop and wait for rescue" policy, especially one backed up by civil enforcement. I understand the impulse to seek reimbursement to the taxpayers for the costs imposed by the utter stupidity of others, but the outdoors is hardly the main place where this occurs.

I see the outdoors as one place where personal responsibility can still be nurtured and practiced, and I would just hate to see it become another place where reliance on the state, and general weenie-ism, is promoted and enforced.

Bankruptcy may be an option, if this debt doesn't pass through to his parents. Can a fine against a minor be enforced?

I'm sure some type of PLB insurance won't be far off. Kind of like those private medical evac. companies that offer coverage to people traveling in remote regions. Pretty much the same concept.

Lets try keeping politics out of the discussion.

I find it peculiar that in the event this young man had not been found, there would not be an issue. I can't imagine a government body fining the survivors of a family member whose "negligence" prompted an expensive search.

"Mason's rescue was particularly expensive because the helicopters the state typically used were unavailable, and a helicopter from Maine had to be brought in, Acerno said."

Unavailable for what reason? How is it that the state is allowed the greatest leeway in the burden of financial responsibility when the greatest cost of the rescue was the state's responsibility, not the eagle scout's?

According the article, the average cost of a rescue in New Hampshire last fiscal year was around $1338.32. If a fine must be imposed, that seems a better figure.

...and so, now that thousands have abused the process in the past, the pendulum will swing the other way for a while. Once people realize again that adventures into the wilds are a privilege and not a right, then perhaps we can wrest government control away from the bureaucrats, maybe. I kinda doubt it. History says once the government starts regulating a thing, they seldom quit.

It was bound to happen. Too many clueless wanderers counting on the effotts of a few dedicated experts. This had litigation written all over it for far too long, begging for government involvement like this.

I know that law, and I like it- it was written so that people who think you can day hike Washington wearing a tshirt, shorts, and carrying only a liter of water get spanked when they call for SAR becuase they are cold and hungry and they hurt when it is getting dark.

But fining this kid is nuts- he lost and honestly hurt. Was his short cut bone headed? Sure, but if he hadn't gotten hurt, would we be thinking it was dumb?

Questions that I'd bring up in court:

(1) Did anyone in the family REQUEST search and rescue? If they did, were they informed of possible costs they may incur?

(2) Is "leaving the trail" a slam-dunk "negligent" action?

(3) What OTHER search and rescue actions have been undertaken in the past, with circumstances similar to this one, and what charges were levied for those? Justify why the charges in THIS case are higher/lower than other cases.

(4) Itemize the actual costs involved and detail where (speciically) any money collected will go (to the SAR group?, etc.)

Rescue is costly. Groups should be reimbursed where appropriate. But from what I read here, I would need convincing that $25K is appropriate in this case. Willing to listen - but initially very skeptical.

Yeah, no conflict of interest there. The people getting paid are the ones judging you. And, oh, doesn't that suddenly give "the department" de facto governing properties? Are they a truly legal government entity?

I'm pretty sure a good lawyer could get this thrown out in several ways; the least being that legal precedent has been set by all the non-fined rescues.

As for the helicopter, why is he being held for the costs because the state is negligent in not having the proper equipment?

The dollar amount seemed a little high unless there was a medevac chopper involved.

I know here in the D/FW area, when CareFlight hits the ignitors on the turbans, it is automatically $10,000.00.

In 2001, the CareFlight aircraft alone were $500.00 per hour to operate. That number was 24 hours a day, not while the aircraft was in flight.

??? I don't understand. Are you saying that being able to go out into the wilderness is a priviledge that can be granted (and therefore, revoked) by somebody? Who? Wilderness is mostly public land AFAIK, not private.

Public land is governed, and is regulated, and access to public land can and has been limited by the government on many occasions over the years. We are often "permitted" to enter public lands to do various actions. Even if you own land, you are subject to regulation of what you can and can't do with it (try draining a recognized wetland on your property and see what happens).

Hiking, biking, camping, hunting, fishing, logging, gardening, conservation, mining, dumping garbage, you name it. Whatever action you want to take on public land, such action can be restricted at anytime by the government, including just stepping foot on it. That makes it a privilege. Abuse it, and you will lose it. Private land ain't much different. A little thing called "Eminent Domain" allows the government to come in and take your land anytime they feel like it. Yeah, you might get paid, but it will be whatever they think it is worth, not what you say it is. And the government can come onto your land anytime they want to, and not only can you not stop them, but if you should try, they can use lethal force against you (as much as it takes to get the job done) and nothing will happen to them.

We have darned few rights these days, a lot fewer than we had a hundred years ago. Last I looked, going wherever you wanted to and owning real property wasn't listed in there. You have the right to pursue it, but not necessarily to ever obtain it.

Was the kid wrong? You bet he was. Did he screw up? Without question. Was the extraction warranted? Based on all available information, I doubt he'd have survived let alone self-rescued without it. Is the fine excessive? The expense is probably justified, but I doubt they'll ever get that out of him or his family. Whether they ever imposed such a stiff fine, or any fine for that matter, on anyone previously rescued in such a manner is irrelevent in court. The law as published provides for application at the discretion of the agency involved, and likewise enforcement is non-obligatory, so that argument is moot. I am quite certain that if they were compelled in court to come up with a list detailed the costs, the fine would likely increase considerably. I doubt any sane lawyer would lead their client down that garden path. The agency will have no problem subtantiating the costs. As for use of non-agency services, that is done all the time, and that is how the agency meets it's obligations in a budget tightened economic cycle. Lots of agencies keep private contractors on reserve for emergencies. Another moot issue.

I expect this to lead to would be adventurers making more solid plans about their expeditions. Maybe, to avoid the high cost of government involvement, I expect someone will provide private SAR services for a subscription fee and if their client gets lost or hurt then they will be the ones contacted and they will be the ones doing the rescue (with commensurate liability insurance coverage should things not work out for the best). Either that, or maybe adventurers will do more to ensure they can self rescue or have friends/family available and properly equipped. The other and more likely recourse, given the laxidaisical nature of the general public towards self-accountability, is that some form of adventurer insurance will become mandatory just like getting a vehicle licensed requires proof of insurance.

Pick one. It is inevitable, Mr. Anderson.

Yes Ben, I think the question will really be about what the meaning of negligence is and who gets to decide it and enforce it.
The act as I read it seems to place a relatively minor gov't department above the authority of the legal system, making them into the judge jury and prosecutor all in one go.

I doubt if any judge would be happy with allowing such a diminuition of his authority.

I can see charging for rescue insurance probably coming down the pipe. It always ashame that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. In the case of this kid, he had made some bad decisions but I don't think the fine is merited in his case. I have a problem with hunters or hikers that get too far out and are to lazy to travel back and fire off a PLB and have SAR rescue them with no life threatening injuries or what have you. This is what is causing all this, a lot of stupid people.

So is that the next step down the path?
To allow NH fish and game to levy rescue insurance premiums and then decide on who gets benefits according to their own determination of the person's negligence?

I think it would be hard to design a system more ready to be abused by the department's accountants.

I started to write a lengthy statement, but decided otherwise. What I will say is purely a gut reaction.

The day we start charging for rescue services, is the day I quit.

(falcon5000, this not in response to you, you were just last on the list)

Pete

Similar case happened in Vancouver this winter. Some skiers deliberately left a ski resort to ski back-country.
The ski patrol attempted to stop them and when they refused to return to the resort they initiated a rescue effort.

The skiers were eventually caught, they claimed that they were not in danger (a couple were avalanche instructors) and that they had a right to be on the land (crown land = government owned, open access but not a national park). This lead to a tricky situation since the rescue agency doesn't have powers of arrest but can force people to be rescued for their own safety. The resort banned them and fined them $15,000 as the cost of the rescue.

There are allegations that the resort is using this to effectively privatise the surrounding mountains, if they can force a 'rescue' and huge fine on anyone that doesn't stay within their property.

Developments with expensive beach front homes could also use it as a way of restricting entry to the public beach by threatening the public with huge rescue costs for anyone entering the water.

AMEN!

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.

I really think 25k is just over the top. A few hundred dollar fine, maybe...

We are only seeing bits and pieces of this story. From some of the scraps of info I have seen, his biggest mistake was going it alone, but then again, who of us hasn't?

Nanny state here we come. When the gubmint starts charging for
rescues, then the rescued will start demanding perfect performance from the rescuers, which in turn will demand restrictions of our activities for our own safety and their
reduction of liability.

No more solo hikes, hang gliding, climbing etc. And for those
considering insurance for those activities? Exemptions. If
you are found liable by the rescuers, you can be sure the
insurance companies aren't going to pay for your costs either.

As a person who has done an S&R up there a few years back, I can attest to one thing; negligence SHOULD be fined.
Now, that being said, from what I understand, this child wasnt negligent. In fact, he did the most logical thing-sought out a high-visibility area when hurt.
But, the negligence stems from FAR too many rescues of idiots who hike in jeans, in winter, with a wool blanket, tarp, and 2 30-packs of beer for a weekend in the woods. Yes, this has happened. More than once, which led to the law currently being the way it is in NH. When the state calls in other agencies, in other states, to assist, even if they are volunteer agencies, it STILL costs them. My S&R group is autonomous, and supported 100% through donations. We all have our own gear, and are quite comfortable in the woods. We have been trained in search techniques in all kinds of terrain. We employ dogs, horses, ATVs, jeeps, and boats. This is all personal upkeep. The state usually picks up the bill for food, and provides temporary shelter (usually with the jhelp of the red cross). But, this pulls employees from their regular jobs, and creates OT for PD & FD personnel.
My personal opinion on this is this:
There should be a panel of experts-people in the S&R arena-to determine negligence. Not left up to lawyers & judges who possibly, at BEST, consider the "wild outdoors" a night spent on their porch, swatting mosquitoes. Sometimes negligence is correct; IMHO, this is not one of those times.

Hello, is this mic on???

Don't let the government assess the risk coverage, or provide the rescue effort. Privatize it all. The government is going to regulate it, but for God's sake, don't let them run the show!

As for insurance, why should it be any different for this activity as for anything else we do? Either insure it or have the participants post a bond or something. I am tired of paying other people's bills. What happens if you are liable in an auto accident and you have insurance? Don't they sell liability coverage? If you commit a crime then forget coverage, that's a fairly universal policy. If you are going to demonstrate a higher risk, then you should pay more. If you are willing to do something to mitigate the risks you take, then you should get a break on the premium. There are exemptions to all sorts of policies, which usually means either the risk is too high, or the tendency for abuse is too high, or it is illegal (no one is going to insure a driver for exceeding the speed limit, at least not without it costing far more than it is worth). Exemption usually means such activity is ill advised anyways. If you are going to go hiking in a posted avalanche zone, then expect to pay through the nose, or to incur great liability financially should something go wrong. I can't think of an exemptive condition that doesn't have stupid written all over it.

Let's put it another way. How much do you suppose Bear Grylls' production pays for insurance for him and the crew while they are out doing the crazy stunts they do? I am certain they have insurance against the hazards, and I bet it ain't cheap, and I bet there are exemptions in his policy as well, which he and the crew avoid like the plague.

All well said...

The sticky part of evaluating negligence seems to be in determining the reasonableness of the defendant's actions. In that respect, judges and lawyers may not be necessarily qualified to make that determination, and so it would behoove the defendant to bring forth a panel of experts to witness on his behalf, so as to set the proper context of the actions leading up to the incident.

Ultimately, the court is trying to determine if the defendant's actions were a proximal cause of any injury or loss, and to what extent such cause contributed to the loss or injury. In this kid's case, based on what has been published, it is pretty clearly established that his actions led to his need for rescue, and that such actions were not reasonable, but he did a lot to mitigate the results so that the burden of rescue was diminished. Based on that, they'll probably settle out of court for a small fraction of the original fine, assuming he shows penitence and not indifference.

Wow! A very enlightening discussion.
I don't think the boy should be fined $25k for negligence, as he's a juvenile and they are not know for making rational decisions. The standard of what a reasonable adult would do doesn't compare.
However, when people intentionally go out of bounds in ski areas, or otherwise put themselves in jeopardy, they should accept that they will have to pay the bills if things go bad. Again, a gov't agency should not "fine" but the private SAR should "bill" for their services. Most SAR are volunteers, supported by donations and fund raisers, much different from fire departments which are supported by direct taxes. We pay for their services a little at a time, rather than all at once, even if we don't use their services. We do that because it's worth it to know they're there if we need them. Even rural volunteer FD's are funded by taxes on "fire districts".
Maybe a tax or "user fee" on users of a backcountry area could be imposed to fund SAR? NAH! We don't need no steekin taxes, nor bloated bureaocracy. The only alternative is to bill for service rendered to those who use them. If the users don't pay, the SAR volunteers have to. Is that fair? There ain't no free lunch.

I cannot address how other areas of the country view SAR, but here (in Maryland) SAR is a law enforcement endeavor. It is viewed as a law enforcement (LE) function due to the potentiality of criminal involvement. Usually, either the Maryland State Police, the local police agency (in Frederick it is the Sheriff's Department) or if at one of the state or federal parks, a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or United States Park Service (USPS) Ranger assumes the lead role.

Depending upon the nature of the call, they (LE) generally requests the local fire department(s)/technical rescue team and local, regional or state SAR groups. The request for assistance is considered an extension of formal or informal agreements between the police agency(s) and these other entities. It is true, that our law enforcement agencies, fire department and tech rescue team receive tax dollars, but in the case of the fire department and tech rescue team, we do a lot of fund raising and/or purchase our own gear. I believe the direct costs of rescue should never be passed along to those you we serve, for whatever reason they need our assistance.

You may or may not agree that the following illustration is a fair analogy for the situation we are discussing. I feel it does.

There has been much discussion placed upon the knowledge, skills, equipment/supplies and decision making of the individual(s) in determining blame and/or responsibility (including financial) of those who are a situation requiring assistance/rescue. Let’s say we have a hypothetical situation where a wife is being physically and mentally abused by the husband. The situation has gone on for some time and she has had opportunities to leave, but she is emotionally and financially unprepared to leave. The situation, one day escalates into a hostage situation, in which police are called, resulting in dozens of police officers, maybe even fire/EMS to resolve the situation. The police manage to subdue and take the husband into custody; she requires EMS and a trip to the hospital to treat her for injuries suffered during the situation (she has no insurance). Should she be fined or charged for the response of the police and fire/EMS? She had plenty of opportunities to prepare herself to leave, but the personal decisions she made, kept her with her abusive husband. I would think most of us would agree it would be ridiculous to fine her or charge her for being rescued. So why do we hold/expect others who may not have the same level of passion as we do, to be prepared or to always make the right decision in the “wild” to a higher level?

Yes, personal responsibility is essential, but so is compassion and understanding. In my humble opinion, unless someone is deliberately being reckless or intentionally breaking the law, we as a society have an obligation to assist/rescue those in need, without fining or charging them for our service.

I speak only for myself, but feel I have some small measure of right to hold these opinions. I have been involved with technical rescue for almost 20 years; have spent thousands of hours in classes and training, spent thousands of my own (and family’s) dollars to purchase equipment and have responded to hundreds of calls. I have laid my life on the line more than once to save someone, regardless of why they are in the situation they are in. From the bottom of my heart, I do not do these things because I want praise, thanks or compensation.

Just my 2 cents-
Pete

Well said, Pete. I think it boils down to this:

We rescue, because we are human.

I too believe in compassion for my fellow man, and I count charity as one of the highest ideals of humanity. However,while I will vehemntly support your right to your opinion, I will with even greater resolve oppose any notion that we as a society or as individuals should be obligated to abrogate the risks taken by others. That one or even many may feel so inclined to give from their abundance to see to the welfare of those who choose not to mind to their own needs and responsibilities should never become the basis by which all with the means to do so should be likewise compelled by law or regulation. Unfortunately, in these times such inclination has become commonplace; and so what I and those likewise blessed with an abundance in life might freely offer to those who's judgement seems lacking is compulsorily taken from us, and thus charity becomes diminished, replaced with simple extortion.

In the analogy given, and as with myriad similar situations, it is unfortunate that people get themselves into such bad predicaments, and perpetuate their error by not doing something themselves to rectify the problem before it escalates into something beyond their control. Intervention by the public servant has more to do with keeping the peace and securing the public interest than with rescuing the individual from their self imposed fate.

This expectation of entitlement is nothing more than an abuse of a benefit intended to protect a community from calamity in the course of normal and mundane activities, not to indemnify individuals against irresponsible behavior, which is increasingly invoked these days.

If grown-ups have a personal umbrella insurance policy, on top of their underlying homeowners and auto policies, wouldn’t the umbrella underwriter pay for reasonable charges assessed against the named insured by the rescue service(s) if its uncertain whether negligence is involved (or even in the case of gross negligence), or wouldn't the underwriter at least pay for the legal defense of the insured? Sure wish one of the fine attorneys on this site would brief this issue (in light of the language in several randomly selected umbrella policies).

If you have umbrella coverage, New Hampshire would certainly go after your insurance provider and most NH courts would informally limit recoveries to the extent of insurance. In effect, everyone who is a named insured in an umbrella policy is a first class citizen in that they have pre-paid their "rescued while negligent" assessments (but would still be subject to loss of NH driving privileges, darn). My take is that any time the person rescued has been drinking or taking drugs (such as dope for ADD), he or she is or would be deemed, for better or worse, automatically negligent, so he or she pays for the search & rescue with PayPal.

State Farm and All State in my state, surprising cover a number of risks that are not otherwise covered by underlying policies, such as non-business related libel and slander (who would have guessed?). (However, I still advise grownups to never talk to a newspaper reporters, but I'm just a kid and what do I know.) No other type of non-business insurance that I'm aware of covers liable and slander.

Could Lloyds be persuaded to write search and rescue insurance, to be sure? Good question. There are some Hunting Club Liability Policies that I've seen that are sure knocking on the door of covering these risks if the search is related to hunting club pursuits, whether on public or private land.

Why doesn't the Eagle Scout make a reconventional demand against the park (F&W) service and/or the rescue agencies? In my part of the country, the Eagle Scout would not only have an excellent case, but he'd also be handsomely compensated for his pain and suffering [including, but not limited to the mental anguish suffered by the implementation of an arbitrary $25,000 fine (i.e. rounded up to the nearest $25,000 --- seems as if in NH public officials like to round a lot, but this is the price the NH citizens pay for under funding the school system for so many years)]. If I were an Eagle Scout, I'd settle for $2,500,000, an apology from the Governor on behalf of all NH citizens, attorney's fees and the immediate resignation of the Executive Director. The park service would then think a lot more than twice before drawing more incoming by recklessly implementing more of these nice, fat & round fines in $25,000 increments.

Where this is heading is that people are going to think a whole lot before they even consider calling for help if he or she, a family member, friend or someone they don’t know is or could be lost and injured or lying very very still, especially while in the dark, damp, cold, tick infested New Hampshire woods. This is going to greatly lessen the need for volunteers and paid rescue services. It will also lessen the reason for being of the national and state park systems, or at least their bloated staffs, and I’ll have you know its for the greater good. Not only the victim but the caller or person who “stupidly” reports the potential wildernism emergency could be held liable for fines and the cost of searches, and the caller could be subjected to hard time. On my solo mis-adventures, and in light of my helplessly meager resources (no thanks to the repressive child labor laws), the only time I'd be calling for rescue would be when there is a lot less than remote chance, god forbid, I can claw my way out.

Actually, I believe they will think a whole lot more before considering going out into the wilderness unprepared.

Most folks do not want to suffer and/or die when pursuing life's interests. As with all such endeavors, it is suitable to become informed of and prepare for reasonable risks associated with activities, and given the opportunity, I believe most responsible people will avail themselves of the proper knowledge and preparations to mitigate such reasonable risks. The key qualifier here is the opportunity to be proactive about it. I don't know too many "experienced" people that would just go pick up an acetylene torch and try to start cutting steel with it, or a table saw, or a gun, or a car. A reasonable person is going to evaluate the situation up front before taking action, and do all they can reasonably to prepare for it. Does that mean they will always avoid the need for rescue? Certainly not, but if they are aware ahead of time that rescue may not necessarily be free, and that there are avenues for them to pursue which will satisfy their obligations should a rescue be needed and payment is authorized, then I don't see why a person so prepared would not contact the rescuers upon determining their services are needed.

In fact, by excersing a little due diligence up front, I expect that rescues might go off a bit smoother, because the forethought required to make the insurance decision would lead to more preparations by the adventurer in other aspects that lend to avoidance of a bad situation as well as better equipped to deal with one.

I don't know as the Eagle Scout in this case would successfully argue his case for reconvening. I suspect that the department/agency would have no problem demonstrating the requisite details of billing associated with the levied fine. In fact, I suspect if they were so challenged, they could easily exacerbate the value and show cause for an increase in the amount cited. It would be better given the information available for the scout and his family to seek settlement outside of court and not challenge the agency. More than likely, the agency had already sought legal consel on the matter and had cleared an excessive fine amount through proper documentation, and was already judgement proof at the time of the citation. The family would be at a serious legal disadvantage in such a challenge, and victory, if any, would come at a high cost in attorneys and court time. They could fight the good fight I suppose, but would it really be worth it, when they could settle for less than 1/5 the face value of the fine?

NH RSA 206:26-bb is poorly drafted, disjointed and sophomoric at best, if not reckless. Obviously the law's preparers had little if any knowledge of the New Hampshire area. There is hardly a single sentence in the so called law that is clear. It contains and repeats undefined terms. There could not have been any legal input whatsoever in drafting this law. One of the major contributors to the plan didn't even live in New Hampshire and does not have to live with the law's consequences; rather its more obvious he or she must live on beech front property in Florida.

Its futher obvious that the legislators were heavily boozed-up when this law was written (they are noted for this type of peculiar NH behavior - especially the ones that like two double scotch and sodas before the day gets started during legislative session - and you know who they are). No attorney was anywhere near the various drafts during legislative process. If they were, I'd like to know what law school they attended - certainly any such attorney didn't graduate in the top 5% of their class. For that matter, 95% of the NH attorneys didn't graduate in the top 5% of their law school class.

One of the many examples of NH legislature being asleep at the wheel as to the writing of this law is that the fish and game employees themselves are subject to these life (as they know it) ending financial penalties whenever they require or direct that a search be done for anyone. The executive director his or her self is in a situation where he or she would have to fine his or her self in $25,000 increments if he or she acts negligently in ordering a search and rescue. I say, throw the NH bums out of office and replace the NH legislature's attorneys with ones that at least have a tendency, when so inclined, to think right (I know that's a lot to ask) and especially with ones that can read and write (to the extent they exist in NH, although I have my doubts).

Grady,

That's a lot of good insight into NH lawmaking, and I suspect it is not as rare an event nationally as we would like to hope for. While I am not experienced with municipalities with such poor performance legislatively, I can understand how this would happen, especially in an east coast community.

If they really did act so capriciously, then they should be taken to task (if not the woodshed) and called out for the incompetents they are. Invoking rules like this without benefit of legal advice is just asking for trouble.

But tell us how you really feel? LOL

Hogwash,

If you really want to start making people responsible for their
actions, go after those that cost us all the real money-

"Obesity costs US health system $147 billion-study"

http://www.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNews/idUSN2752960820090727

not some Eagle Scout out for his health who sprains an ankle.