Lost back country skier sues SAR for taking too long

[DrJJFate]

My thought is they would simply stop doing it. Of course then someone would sue them for not being there.

My thoughts exactly. I think folks who sue sometimes forget that whom or whatever they are suing does not necessarily have to stick around.

If SAR is going to become a target of lawsuits, the organizations, many of which are either run by municipalities or volunteers, will simply stop offering the services.

but SAR can make mistakes, or do something careless, that could lead to the person being worse off than if SAR had not been there.

I agree, but this is more hypothetical/philosophical: One could argue that in nearly every SAR call a person's life is at stake. And SAR teams react as such in all cases.

 

[Craig]

For the sake of discussion let me ask this.

If we as hikers/climbers are going to be judged and held accountable for our actions or lack there of, then why shouldn’t SAR be judged and held accountable for their actions or lack there of?

Or

If we are of the opinion that *stuff* happens (when it happens to us we shouldn’t be blamed because we’re just out having fun) then shouldn’t we also expect that *stuff* will happen to SAR’s and they shouldn’t be blamed.

Or

When *stuff* happens to us we should be held accountable but SAR’s should be immune from accountability (as the system is set up now) (note: SAR is typically the one doing the judging).

Just stuff to think about.

 

[Chip]

I almost agree with this, but SAR can make mistakes, or do something careless, that could lead to the person being worse off than if SAR had not been there.

That's part of the Good Samaritan protection. If you are trying to help you can't be held liable if a mistake occurs. It's presumed, I guess, that more good than harm will generally occur and that it's worth the risk to try to help.

 

[Stash]

For the sake of discussion let me ask this.

If we as hikers/climbers are going to be judged and held accountable for our actions or lack there of, then why shouldn’t SAR be judged and held accountable for their actions or lack there of?

Or

If we are of the opinion that *stuff* happens (when it happens to us we shouldn’t be blamed because we’re just out having fun) then shouldn’t we also expect that *stuff* will happen to SAR’s and they shouldn’t be blamed.

Or

When *stuff* happens to us we should be held accountable but SAR’s should be immune from accountability (as the system is set up now) (note: SAR is typically the one doing the judging).

Just stuff to think about.

One question.. Define "accountable".

If it's a requirement to review the sequence of events to identify WHAT went wrong and try to come up with a way to correct the situation in a future event then that's a good thing.

If "accountable" is simply finding SOMEONE to blame then that serves no real purpose.

 

[Peakbagr]

I have my own perspective on this. A large outing club I'm affiliated with was sued in the late 90's by a pair of guys who showed up from out of state midmorning at the main Mt Marcy trailhead on a horrible winter weather day.

They rented snowshoes from the organization and the club employee tried to talk them out of starting out for Mt Marcy - too late with a NWS forecast stating dangerous conditions, too inexperienced and too underequipped.
They set out anyway, with small day packs, a peanut butter sandwhich or two, a couple of cans of beer and and some pot to maintain themselves.

They met a winter mountaineering party coming off Marcy at treeline who tried to discourage the pair to no avail. Up they went, got disorientated in the roaring gale and snowstorm and hiked off Marcy in the wrong direction.
Spent the first night below the treeline in a spruce trap burning wallet contents to stay warm. They spent another night out before being seen by a rescue helicopter looking for them. Severe frostbite damages included loss of digits and limb portions.
Upshot: They sued the Club for $40M because the Club should have somehow 'noticed' they didn't return to the huge parking lot and the Rangers and police not notified earlier. They also alledged they were given wrong weather forecast.

After years of EBTs, hearings, depositions and offers to settle that the Club summarily turned down, a court heard the case and awarded them ZERO.
What it did, though, was put a huge burden on the Club to develop a defense, depose witnesses, and the cost to fight it by the insurance carrier was $600K.

 

[bobmak]

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.

 

[hikes-with-him]

One of the things that I really love about forums like this (as long as they don't deteriorate into just being nasty about things)...the ability to get multiple points of view...things that I, in my own little world, may not have thought about. This is how I learn...

 

[Craig]

For the sake of discussion let me ask this.

If we as hikers/climbers are going to be judged and held accountable for our actions or lack there of, then why shouldn’t SAR be judged and held accountable for their actions or lack there of?

One question.. Define "accountable".

I was speaking in terms of NH but it applies elsewhere in the country.

In NH, if you’re found reckless (actions or inactions) (and I’m pretty sure SAR has a major role in determining if someone is found to be reckless or not) you are subject to paying for the rescue (accountability).

 

[DrJJFate]

For the sake of discussion let me ask this.

If we as hikers/climbers are going to be judged and held accountable for our actions or lack there of, then why shouldn’t SAR be judged and held accountable for their actions or lack there of?

Or

If we are of the opinion that *stuff* happens (when it happens to us we shouldn’t be blamed because we’re just out having fun) then shouldn’t we also expect that *stuff* will happen to SAR’s and they shouldn’t be blamed.

Or

When *stuff* happens to us we should be held accountable but SAR’s should be immune from accountability (as the system is set up now) (note: SAR is typically the one doing the judging).

Just stuff to think about.

Generally speaking though, responsible hikers/climbers who enter and exit the wilderness without incident, are judged and held accountable by themselves (and their respective parties).

When an incident/accident occurs, hikers/climbers should be judged and held accountable by those whom they are impacting (their hiking/climbing party & community, familly, SAR, etc). It is through this examination that the hiker/climber will be deemed 1) responsibly prepared, but an extraordinary situation occured or, 2) irresponsible, careless, or even reckless.

SAR will be examined and judged in every situation in which they are contacted, regardless of what decision is made about the particular call.

 

[Tom Rankin]

One of the things that I really love about forums like this (as long as they don't deteriorate into just being nasty about things)...the ability to get multiple points of view...things that I, in my own little world, may not have thought about. This is how I learn...

Me too!

 

[David Metsky]

That's part of the Good Samaritan protection. If you are trying to help you can't be held liable if a mistake occurs. It's presumed, I guess, that more good than harm will generally occur and that it's worth the risk to try to help.

This isn't my understanding of Good Samaritan laws. You are only protected if you are undertaking actions that you are qualified to perform. If I were to attempt an emergency tracheotomy and the person died, I would most likely not be covered by the Good Samaritan law. Whether I could be sued and a judgment awarded against me is another thing. As with most things in this subject area, very little is black or white.

 

[psmart]

Like most legal stories, the situation is a bit more complex than it first appears...

Careful reading of the article indicates that the Provincial Emergency Program (PEP) does provide liability coverage for the actual SAR volunteers (who may also be protected by good Samaritan laws.) So the individual SAR volunteers do not seem to be at risk in this suit.

The issue is that the PEP coverage may not extend to cover the SAR organization and it's board of directors.

This is a common concern for non-profit organizations, which often obtain separate liability insurance to cover the assets of the organization and their board of directors.

Hopelly the PEP coverage will be extended to the board of directors. It sounds like this is the clarification (or change) that the SAR groups are looking for.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Chouinard's Patagonia was sued by friends of their lawyer colleague who died in a rappeling accident on an Exum Guide training course in the Tetons back in the late 1970s (I forget the exact year). Exum Guide School and the guide instructing the course were also sued, but their pockets were empty. Chouinard Equipment, which manufactured the sit-harness that the guide did not notice was buckled improperly, also had essentially empty pockets. However, the prosecution was not able to win the case against Patagonia, as Chouinard astutely made it a separate entity from the get go. The lawsuit also led to Chouinard Equipment refomulating as Black Diamond, owned by Chouinard's former employees, and moving to Salt Lake City. Many times the judicial system gets things right, in my opinion.

 

[J.Dub]

I believe it does locally. When I had to call 911, and finally spoke to someone local, the discussion about whether I was prepared to spend the night occured. I don't remember if they brought it up or I did, though. When they (Franconia PD) spoke to my wife, she also reiterated I carry enough gear to be okay overnight.

Hmmm...methinks I missed a TR somewhere. Can you send me a link, or should I just search the archives for "Chip" and "epic"? (Worst case, you can tell me the next time we go out climbing. Hint, hint..) I'm assuming you stayed out overnight and either got back yourself or were "rescued" the next day.

For the rest of all y'all (just for the sake of debate): Let's say, hypothetically, that things DIDN'T work out for the best and Chip assumed room temperature somewhere lost in the Whites and it ended up being a recovery and not a rescue. 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?

I bet there are a lot of folks, maybe not on this forum however, who wouldn't think twice about suing the Franconia PD, the 911 dispatcher and anybody else who was even tangentially involved.

Discuss...

 

[Chip]

This isn't my understanding of Good Samaritan laws. You are only protected if you are undertaking actions that you are qualified to perform. If I were to attempt an emergency tracheotomy and the person died, I would most likely not be covered by the Good Samaritan law. Whether I could be sued and a judgment awarded against me is another thing. As with most things in this subject area, very little is black or white.

It's my understanding that "qualified" individuals have less protection than "on lookers", which is why Doctors have liability insurance, BUT...

"Good Samaritan provisions are not universal in application. The legal principle of imminent peril may also apply.[8] In the absence of imminent peril, the actions of a rescuer may be perceived by the courts to be reckless and not worthy of protection. To illustrate, a motor vehicle collision occurs, but there is no fire, no immediate life threat from injuries and no danger of a second collision. If a 'good Samaritan' elects to 'rescue' the victim from the wreckage, causing paralysis or some other injury, a court may rule that good Samaritan laws do not apply because the victim was not in imminent peril and hold the actions of the rescuer as 'reckless' and unnecessary."

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I was in Golden, B.C., in late April, and there was some discussion of this incident among the locals. As I understand it, some felt that jurisdictional issues slowed the response initially.

This is not uncommon in SAR missions, forest fires, etc. It's not always clear who should respond in emergencies. A couple of years ago lightening struck a mountainside a few miles from where I live, and it's wasn't clear whether it was on FS or BLM land, so ... it burned many more acres than it "needed" to before a fire crew responded.

Unless/until there are teams which respond without regard to jurisdiction, there are bound to be instances where the response is delayed.

 

[pudgy_groundhog]

While I feel badly for the husband and see how mistakes were made by SAR, I don't agree with the legal case.

 

[funkyfreddy]

I have my own perspective on this. A large outing club I'm affiliated with was sued in the late 90's who showed up from out of state midmorning at the main Mt Marcy trailhead on a horrible winter weather day.

They rented snowshoes from the organization and the club employee tried to talk them out of starting out for Mt Marcy - too late with a NWS forecast stating dangerous conditions, too inexperienced and too underequipped.
They set out anyway, with small day packs, a peanut butter sandwhich of two, a couple of cans of beer and and some pot to maintain themselves.

They met a winter mountaineering party coming off Marcy at treeline who tried to discourage the pair to no avail. Up they went, got disorientated in the roaring gale and snowstorm and hiked off Marcy in the wrong direction.
Spent the first night below the treeline in a spruce trap burning wallet contents to stay warm. They spent another night out before being seen by a rescue helicopter looking for them. Severe frostbite damages included loss of digits and limb portions.
Upshot: They sued the Club for $40M because the Club should have somehow 'noticed' they didn't return to the huge parking lot and the Rangers and police not notified earlier. They also alledged they were given wrong weather forecast.

After years of EBTs, hearings, depositions and offers to settle that the Club summarily turned down, a court heard the case and awarded them ZERO.
What it did, though, was put a huge burden on the Club to develop a defense, depose witnesses, and the cost to fight it by the insurance carrier was $600K.

I don't understand why law suits such as these aren't thrown out of court sooner...... ???? Isn't that a judge's job? Sometimes it seems as if the whole system is rigged for ambulance chasers to scavenge off of.

 

[Stash]

I was speaking in terms of NH but it applies elsewhere in the country.

In NH, if you’re found reckless (actions or inactions) (and I’m pretty sure SAR has a major role in determining if someone is found to be reckless or not) you are subject to paying for the rescue (accountability).

More of a rhetorical question on my part.

I was referring to how much of the legal system seems to equate "accountability" with "blame" resulting in huge monetary punishments rather than a requirement that the person/agency do all in its power to avoid a recurrence. All too often the majority of effort goes into the former.

 

[Paradox]

I don't understand why law suits such as these aren't thrown out of court sooner...... ???? Isn't that a judge's job? Sometimes it seems as if the whole system is rigged for ambulance chasers to scavenge off of.

Yes and judges have the power to make a losing plaintiff pay for the defendants legal costs but they never do. A lot of it becomes a game between the trial lawyers to simply make a defendant so miserable that they cough up some money just to make them go away. Insurance companies are very ready to comply as it is cheaper to pay a plaintiff a smaller amount quickly, than to pay lawyers for many months up to a trial they are only 95% sure they will win.