Lost back country skier sues SAR for taking too long

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
There's plenty of blame to go around. Even if the skiers initially did something stupid and got stuck out there, from what I remember reading someone at RCMP decided not to investigate an "SOS" that was observed stomped out in the snow.

Consider how the man who survived must feel -- he called for help, it was heard, and while it was then being ignored, his wife died. It seems pretty easy to see where this man's frustration is coming from, and why he'd want to sue.

Edit: That's not to say that I think suing is necessarily the best response. Just that I can understand a likely motivation behind it.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me whatever liability they can get out of SAR is negated by the fact that they skied out-of-bounds. Personal responsibility (a key plank in my own personal platform) is lost on the current generations.

Tim
 
I find the whole thing ridiculous. You ski out of bounds, you get lost, and then you sue because someone didn't save you in time? This is the reason that it costs $70 a day to go skiing(the cost of mountains paying for their liability insurance) and why a lot of places do not allow skiing out of bounds. Also why many of the smaller ski mountains closed in the last 15 years, they couldnt afford the insurance.

Most of the SAR teams will go away if they are sued. Why would you want to risk your life helping people just to get sued? The Adirondack case was just ridiculous, reading that one. The lawsuits just end up harming the innocent people while the morons make out with money in some of these cases.
 
There's plenty of blame to go around. Even if the skiers initially did something stupid and got stuck out there, from what I remember reading someone at RCMP decided not to investigate an "SOS" that was observed stomped out in the snow.
What's sad is that if the lost skiers had stayed put, they would've been found. Other skiers saw the "SOS" and reported it according to one of the articles .... so if the "SOS" was found, they would've been too.

But I do agree the "SOS" should've been investigated.

I think mistakes were made all around, but I still don't think that means the SAR is to blame and should be sued.
 
I find the whole thing ridiculous. You ski out of bounds, you get lost, and then you sue because someone didn't save you in time? This is the reason that it costs $70 a day to go skiing(the cost of mountains paying for their liability insurance) and why a lot of places do not allow skiing out of bounds. Also why many of the smaller ski mountains closed in the last 15 years, they couldnt afford the insurance.

Most of the SAR teams will go away if they are sued. Why would you want to risk your life helping people just to get sued? The Adirondack case was just ridiculous, reading that one. The lawsuits just end up harming the innocent people while the morons make out with money in some of these cases.
Fortunately here in New Hampshire it is almost impossible to sue a ski resort. State Laws have been instituted to protect the resorts. Is Chomp available to chime in here?
 
What then? Does his wife have grounds for a wrongful death suit? Even though he had "appropriate" gear, it clearly wasn't "enough" and he ended up dying, so shouldn't he have been rescued immediately, rather than having to spend the night lost in the Whites?

Discuss...

She'd want to kill me for dying, but it would never cross my wife's mind to sue SAR or FPD. That's what incontestable life insurance and investments are for; my dumb mistakes.
 
Bobmak said:
Tough case. Let me say this... I believe when you go into the backcountry you are responsible for your own actions and should never "expect" someone to rescue you. If you run into trouble and someone saves your butt that's great, but it should not be thought of as a right. I feel bad for this couple, but there is inherent risk in any outdoor pursuit.

I couldn't have said it any better.

We need to support our SAR organizations - not sue them!

I also expect to take responsibility for my own actions. I personally can't shift blame to someone else when I screw up.
 
Some additional information.

Daily Herald Tribune said:
Ahlstrom fears this lawsuit, while not a common scenario, could bring on more.

“Once it starts, then it breaks the taboo. I think there was maybe a certain taboo around that ‘I’m going after volunteers’ and I think that has sort of been broken,” she said.

The president of the Search and Rescue Volunteers Association of Canada, Harry Blackmore, has been quoted as saying he has never heard of a search-and-rescue group being sued before.

The plaintiff speaks

The Daily Graphic said:
Last March, Blackburn told the Sun, “What I did was my fault, but only on the first day, on the 15th, not after that.”

He vowed to ensure no SOS is ever ignored again, and yesterday he suggested any rescue agency which claims his lawsuit is hurting the industry is avoiding the real issue.
 
"But officer I robbed the bank yesterday"

"But your honor, I was driving drunk last Thursday"

"But honey, I only had an affair that one time..."

BZZZZT. That argument holds water as well as a fishnet stocking.

Tim
 
Last edited:
Lost skier sues

I was in the Canadian Rockies while this was going on. From what I can remember, the local SAR was not allowed to commence a search until the RCMP authorized it. IMHO, there may well be negligence, I'm just not sure how much exposure the SAR group will have in relation to this tragic incident.
 
"But officer I robbed the bank yesterday"

"But your honor, I was driving trunk last Thursday"

"But honey, I only had an affair that one time..."

BZZZZT. That argument holds water as well as a fishnet stocking.

Tim

:D:D
Completely agree.
 
Boy Tim, you sure got this one right.

[RANT]
"But your honor, I know I was out of bounds when I skied off of the cliff. But we screamed for a really, really long time, all the way down, and SAR didn't catch us before we hit the ground. Skiing off of the cliff was clearly my fault because I skied out of bounds without due regard for my own safety, or my fiances', but when the screaming started it became their responsibility."

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

I usually try to not get involved in these (stupid/ignorant hiker threads) but this is beyond the pale. I could happily use names for this guy I haven't used since I was in the Army. To his face. While holding his head by his hair and kicking him in the groin. REPEATEDLY!!! While explaining to him how he screwed up.

[/RANT]

Keith
 
RANT said:
:mad::mad::mad::mad:

I usually try to not get involved in these (stupid/ignorant hiker threads) but this is beyond the pale. I could happily use names for this guy I haven't used since I was in the Army. To his face. While holding his head by his hair and kicking him in the groin. REPEATEDLY!!! While explaining to him how he screwed up.

[/RANT]


Really? I think the guy is in the wrong too, but this is a particularly uncharitable view of human imperfection.
 
From where I'm sitting it appears:

1. The husband and wife decided to go out of bounds bypassing a clearly marked warning sign. After skiing downhill they found themselves at some cliffs unable to go down or back up.

Shame on them.

2. The SAR folks were notified (by the resort) of the missing skiers and subsequent SOS visual spotted on the side of the mountain. Because they were not asked to respond by the police (just the resort notified them) their insurance would not cover their organization for the rescue. Therefore they chose not to respond.

Shame on them.

Perhaps there's enough blame to go around.
 
I'm under the impression that SAR people are a little bit like doctors and policemen, we don't like to have doubts about their judgment, it very disturbing... As if we realize we can't have an absolute faith in those very important organisations anymore. I think they neglicted the SOS (more than one time if I remember well), and that should be investigated, whoever is responsible for that.

That said, I also think the couple was responsible for what happened. They didn't apply basic safety rules.
 
Charity has nothing to do with it. He is in his right and I will defend anyone’s right to be his own crash test dummy. But doing that and then trying to blame everyone around him for the outcome and because it didn’t have the outcome he wanted blame everyone else, that is not his right and the courts need to send a clear message. His trying to make you believe that his foolish actions somehow rise to a special level where he should have the ability to cause repercussions for other agencies is also not his right. And it should be viewed as an attempt to reduce our amount of freedom in the backcountry because if we are not responsible for ourselves out there, if it becomes societies responsibility, then society has the ability to decide how much we are allowed to do. What, when, where and how and even if.

And as always it is very easy to talk about things that might appear to be black and white after the fact.

Some points of interest though.

First, there is no “duty to act” by any SAR team. I don’t know what the reason is that the SAR team didn’t respond or even if they were or were not notified. And if they were notified if it was a proper notification. In the US, there is usually no requirement for a "duty to act" except under certain specific conditions. There is no, and there should be no expectation that they will be helped. The SAR team didn’t respond. There should have been no expectation that they would. Reasons can range from the weather to they felt that there were unsafe conditions to the inability to get the requisite team to make a safe search to the callout wasn’t legitimate. It is after all a volunteer organization.

Second, SAR teams are rarely, if ever, the lead agency on searches. They are usually called in by the agency in charge. They do not self deploy on searches or rescues.

Third, most SAR teams are protected by the states laws if something goes wrong but, for that state protection to take effect they must be called into action by the state/local agency in charge. That is why they don’t self deploy or deploy because Jim-Bob at the 7-11 called and says he thinks someone is lost because he saw mysterious writings in the snow. They would have no legal protection with the states assistance if they did.

Fourth, when you stomp SOS in the snow. It helps if you actually stay with the sign you made instead of continuing to tromp around aimlessly so it’s harder to be found. And seeing a SOS with someone waving at an aerial unit would be considered a much higher priority than just some stampings in the snow which might be considered a hoax.

Did you actually read some of the statements made by the husband or thier friends? “Cold wasn’t a problem for them”. Yet, his wife probably died from hypothermia. Sounds like he should have considered that the cold could have been a problem and prepared for that pursuing the “sport” he pursued. He should have skied in bounds. He should have stayed put when he created aerial emergency signals. This also sounds like this was a common practice for him and his wife. As a rule when people get away with something that is unsafe to do. They compound their mistake by believing that they got away with it once or twice or more so it must be safe to do. This continues until the odds catch up with them.


I don’t know what possible incorrect actions were done by RCMP, if any, but SAR sounds like they had little to no responsibility in this and should be removed from the lawsuit immediately by the judge if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed. Organizations should and probably will make drastic changes in how and when they deploy or disband entirely if the SAR teams need to defend themselves without state protection or if frivolous lawsuits allow them to be included. In the US I would expect that if the team was called in appropriately, then the state would defend them. If the SAR team was not activated appropriately and they didn’t respond then again, they should be removed from the lawsuit. If the SAR team self deployed or deployed when the agency in charge didn’t request them then there might be some reason to believe that they may have to defend themselves in a lawsuit. The only other question is if the SAR team did something while they were lawfully deployed that was clearly with total disregard for safety or was with willful negligence, which clearly doesn’t seem to be the case. This is all based on US law. I don’t think the Canadians do things too much differently but we will see. To my knowledge, almost every case brought against a SAR agency in the US has been tossed out before trial. There was one if memory serves that did make it to trial in California.

He was negligent. Not only for what he did to get himself into the situation but also in the manner he proceeded after he was lost. Which include the facts that he wasn’t prepared with either appropriate knowledge or equipment for what could have easily been foreseen by any reasonable person as a possible outcome from his own actions. He wasn’t just negligent, what he did probably rises to level of being criminally negligent and what he did and the actions he took is what got his wife killed. If that sounds harsh I make no apologies. Especially if someone else looks at it and decides to not be like him. That in my opinion would be a good thing.

And the standard disclaimers apply. I am no expert in law but we go through stuff like this yearly to make sure we understand when we have a duty to act and when we don’t in EMS/FIRE/RESCUE.

Keith
 
Last edited:
From Craig's post:

Originally Posted by The Daily Graphic
He vowed to ensure no SOS is ever ignored again, and yesterday he suggested any rescue agency which claims his lawsuit is hurting the industry is avoiding the real issue.


Fourth, when you stomp SOS in the snow. It helps if you actually stay with the sign you made instead of continuing to tromp around aimlessly so it’s harder to be found. And seeing a SOS with someone waving at an aerial unit would be considered a much higher priority than just some stampings in the snow which might be considered a hoax.


That about covers it.
 
Top