$25,000 fine assessed for teen hiker

As regards SPOT -- there are loopholes big enough to fly a helicopter through:

"GEOS Search & Rescue Terms

The scope of GEOS SAR benefits includes payment, by GEOS, of up to $100,000 in any one year, limited to $50,000 any one incident, for the provision of necessary additional Search and Rescue resources (including helicopter, aircraft, private search teams etc.) up to the single incident limit for a period not exceeding 72 hours from the time of call for assistance where these are requested by the appropriate rescue authorities and which are necessary to prevent injury or illness or danger to human life as a result of an unforeseeable emergency or to pay for any costs and expenses claimed against you by the appropriate rescue authorities. Provision of additional resources under this service must be first authorized by GEOS.
PLEASE NOTE This benefit does not apply if:-
a) your situation is caused by circumstances such as a forecast change of weather conditions, which could reasonably have been anticipated at the date you started your trip
b) you have NOT made adequate provision of resources or training or competence needed to complete your planned trip. (emphasis added by me)

Please also note that:
1 In the case of death of the Member, GEOS will not be responsible for the transportation of the body
2 GEOS will endeavour to arrange a successful rescue but cannot accept liability for failed rescues due to unforeseen circumstances beyond their control."

The whole premise of the NH statute is that you acted negligently, i.e., failed to act in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. Nope, SPOT ain't "it" either.

sardog1 said:

As regards SPOT -- there are loopholes big enough to fly a helicopter through:

Click to expand...

Assuming you had one and it wasn't somewhere else at the time!!

Originally Posted by sardog1
It's not that different here in NH (although hourly rates may well be somewhat lower), which is why I previously predicted that this one won't go to trial. Exposure to a $25,000+ judgment, plus a possible award of attorney's fees, costs, and interest to the state, plus the expense of defending this = settle long before trial. And if there is in fact liability coverage available under a homeowner's policy, the insurer will call the shots here and get it done pretty quickly. Remember, this is a recovery for alleged negligence, not a fine -- I'm guessing the homeowner's insurer is proceeding right now under a reservation of rights.

WinterWarlock said:

Or, someone might take this pro bono and insist it go to court simply to set the precedent...

Click to expand...

I deleted my post because I realized that I had fashioned a tortuous path to liability coverage that probably would not prevail. Sorry that I didn't delete in time -- please disregard what I posted regarding this. But a corollary question would be, what would a health insurer do if presented with a claim? Hmmmm.

sardog1 said:

I deleted my post because I realized that I had fashioned a tortuous path to liability coverage that probably would not prevail. Sorry that I didn't delete in time -- please disregard what I posted regarding this. But a corollary question would be, what would a health insurer do if presented with a claim? Hmmmm.

Click to expand...

A long time ago my homeowners insurance provider recommended I add a large umbrella policy - which I did. I suppose if I were in this position, that's how I would approach this...

Might be something to look into for some folks? (no, I'm not an insurance salesman)

WinterWarlock said:

A long time ago my homeowners insurance provider recommended I add a large umbrella policy - which I did. I suppose if I were in this position, that's how I would approach this...

Might be something to look into for some folks? (no, I'm not an insurance salesman)

Click to expand...

That's where I went with my afore-mentioned "tortuous path." In the end I decided that I was stretching things too far. It would provoke outrage from insurers and eventually (or even rapidly) an adverse decision from a court, IMO.

Dave Bear said:

We all by the nature of this forum are likely taking a "hikers" point of view, a jury of Mason's "peers" may consist of people that have an entirely different view point. They may be in agreement with people that comment harshly in the Union Leader about hiking.

Click to expand...

That's the frightening part. I don't think I would want the safety of my mountain activities judged by the likes of the UL commentators.

I'm with the folks at NASAR - this is a very bad test case, one that I hope falls flat on it's face.

I take some time off of VFTT & the $h!+ flies. Personal Umbrella, a good idea but check with your agent to see if these cost would be covered. (he tells you yes & then the company denies coverage, you can sue is E&O carrier)

Minor's responsibilities? A contract, well he was given a drivers license, his decisons behind the wheel potentially put more people at risk than his hiking & he drives more often but he & his parents have insurance. (somehow getting a check if I lose a leg or a family member if a minor hits me in his car seems unfair) Did he want a rescue, he's a minor, that decision was made for him by his family. He told them when he would be home & he was overdue & could not be reached.

Interesting that they said he was negligent for continuing up (away from his car) after twisting his ankle. My take initially was that his escape route was where he was negligent. legally, I don't know but an escape route that weekend (still plenty of spring snow in the trees & very warm temps made snow soft & filled streams so many were not crossable) that was to cross streams & deep rotting snow was not a well thought plan of escape. (IMO that's the biggest mistake, maybe the only one but I'm biased as a hiker who has twisted an ankle & actually hiked with a broken bone in my foot several times - even solo - had I required a rescue, yeah I was stupid & maybe negligent - for the broken bone bit)

Had he been forced off the ridge because of weather than it's a choice of perils, that was not the case though. He was fine up on the ridge, most likely would have survived that first night on top, even without a bivy bag, it was that unseasonable but that is not what we have learned & most often it is better down low.

Instead of heading down, he could have just reversed direction on Gulfside, he may have been late & come down in the dark had he reversed his direction (which he did after a couple of days later after regaining the ridge) but he knew what was behind him there were no high water crossings & the TRT or winter LH was (as always in season) would have been well worn & easy to follow with a light.

None of this diminishes his skills at stayaing warm for a couple of unplanned nights & his strength to go back up the ridge & to be walking out on his own when he came across the SAR folks. Hopefully, he'll spend some more time planning trips in other seasons besides summer & when less than ideal conditions may be encountered. He's probably learned that now, thankfully he's fine, that's what really matters

In a search and rescue, if a hiker is found deceased, do they charge the family?

as Gris has pointed out, this type of "fine" would cause some people in danger to think dollars first and safety somewhere after that.

in addition some have compared this type of rescue service with police charging to answer a break-in or the VFD coming out to save your foundation during a fire.

in the case of a break-in, if there was a PD response charge, cant you imagine Joe Homeowner hearing the sound of glass and saying " if I call 911, I will get a fee because the police could have been doing something else instead of saving me. I'll take care of this myself . Honey, where's my deer rifle?"

OK... bad analogy, but so would be many of the decisions made using dollar criteria for safety issues

I live in NH , and I too, get pissed when I hear of another knucklehead that ran down to Eastern Mountain with a credit card and then showed up at the Highland Ctr,bitched about the wine list and then headed out the next day to do a Presi with two bottles of Poland Springs and those cool cross trainers with the stripes and logos. Yes , we've all seen them. Darwin needed to do a wider study.

Fines are not the answer. I think they would hurt NH more than help. Finding a better way to fund F&G is.

What if people refused to pay? or what about recouping costs for recovery ? we wont bring the body down til you give a credit card !! F&G would become like tow truck drivers!

I think,ultimately, some type of outdoor users insurance would be the best solution.Not everyone would get it and those that did would be subsidizing those that didnt. But at least we would have a benefit that would (hopefully) be usable in other places.Maybe some kind of partnership with outdoor products manufacturers ( with the added incentive of freeing them from some liability) Or maybe making the insurance card the cool accessory to go with those cross trainers with the stripes and logos !!!

<Mod hat>
Please no posts about fund raising of any type. Thank you.
</Mod hat>

kmac said:

In a search and rescue, if a hiker is found deceased, do they charge the family?

Click to expand...

KMAC,

Not in the case of my dear friend, Ray Loring. He had a fatal heart attack during a bushwhack of Peak Above The Nubble.

Marty

general comment...

I bushwack a lot and I do think it's more dangerous to do so because it will take much longer to be rescued. I don't consider it negligent, but should I need to employ the services of SAR, I'd expect a bill simply because a service has been employed on my behalf.


American society has ventured far from her liberty-loving roots. Now we want everything for free from mommy government. We want hunters and others to pay for a service that saves our own life.

Is your car payment an injustice?

Tim Seaver said:

That's the frightening part. I don't think I would want the safety of my mountain activities judged by the likes of the UL commentators.

Click to expand...

I knew a guy who was hesitant to take his kid winter hiking because he might appear reckless in a custody case.

Apparently under the old common law in England, a jury of your peers was made up of community members who knew the parties involved and were likely to render a better decision than one from a remote king's agent. Now of course if you know the parties you are excused from service. And in the Manchester shooting case, the defendant's lawyer argued that instead of being tried locally the case should be moved to somewhere that the residents were more like the defendant who was not originally from NH. Perhaps if F&G considers you reckless, that means the case should be judged by a panel of reckless hikers

kmac said:

In a search and rescue, if a hiker is found deceased, do they charge the family?

Click to expand...

I have seen a statement that they don't charge in fatal cases regardless of fault

Paul the Explorer said:

in addition some have compared this type of rescue service with police charging to answer a break-in or the VFD coming out to save your foundation during a fire.
...
I think,ultimately, some type of outdoor users insurance would be the best solution.Not everyone would get it and those that did would be subsidizing those that didnt. But at least we would have a benefit that would (hopefully) be usable in other places.Maybe some kind of partnership with outdoor products manufacturers ( with the added incentive of freeing them from some liability) Or maybe making the insurance card the cool accessory to go with those cross trainers with the stripes and logos !!!

Click to expand...

The actual rescue is more akin to calling an ambulance where you do get a bill, in at least one case the DART helicopter was used and they do render bills. But a rescue where the location is known is a straightforward operation where the cost may be expensive but not boundless. A search however can cost huge sums if the person isn't found right away and the expense is more under the person's control if they stick to their plan or carry a satellite beacon.

What bugs me about insurance is the excessive premiums that are proposed. People talk of $10/year but if you divide the F&G S&R expense by the number of different hikers each year in NH the cost is less than $1 each which would be too expensive to collect unless the pass was good for 10 years or more. Of course once the pot of money was available, there would be a lot more groups clamoring for a share so I think a multistate pass is a nonstarter. The cost of S&R is a drop in the bucket compared to the rooms and meals tax collected, or even the amount it would drop if NH started requiring a pass and the number of visitors dropped, but the state doesn't see it that way.

forestgnome said:

general comment...

American society has ventured far from her liberty-loving roots. Now we want everything for free from mommy government. We want hunters and others to pay for a service that saves our own life.

Is your car payment an injustice?

Click to expand...

Bad analogy - imo, a better comparison is the example of the police charging you when you call to report that your car's been stolen, or that you've been in an accident. And further, as in this instance, only charging certain people. Would you consider that just?

On another tangent - let's say they DO start charging everyone. Who do you think gets hit harder by the possibility of a $25K fee? Who is more likely to find that financially burdensome enough to keep them out of the woods? "Real Hikers"? Or the "credit card-wielding, yuppie AMC scum" that some on this board are fond of railing at?

griffin said:

On another tangent - let's say they DO start charging everyone. Who do you think gets hit harder by the possibility of a $25K fee? Who is more likely to find that financially burdensome enough to keep them out of the woods? "Real Hikers"? Or the "credit card-wielding, yuppie AMC scum" that some on this board are fond of railing at?

Click to expand...

This speaks to my post, oh, four or five pages back.

Should we consider SAR activities as public service (a la fire/police) or fee-for-service (e.g., private ambulance).

I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer, but I do believe that one's opinion on this question affects how they view the current $25K expense recovery case.

As an aside -- I just wanted to thank everybody for their input/comments on this thread. Yes, it's long, but there's a lot of good discussion going on (IMO) without things degenerating into the name-calling and personal attacks found so often on Intreenet forums. It's refreshing, I tell ya!

griffin said:

a better comparison is the example of the police charging you when you call to report that you've been in an accident. And further, as in this instance, only charging certain people. Would you consider that just?

Click to expand...

I have mentioned before that we (Fire/Rescue/EMS) DO charge people for car accidents where we need to use the Hurst tool (jaws of life) on the heavy rescue vehicle. If the accident is on the highway, and the State police who investigate accidents on the interstate charge you in the accident you also get to pay for your extrication and anyone else’s.

This policy came about in a very straightforward manner. The expenses incurred were looked at and it was found that the most expensive accidents/rescues/fires/medical responses we have are the highway accidents. In terms of personnel, equipment and wear and tear. Our town, not a large town, was using a very large amount of its fire/rescue budget to basically rescue people driving through our town recklessly. Like everyone else’s budget ours was being reduced and several years ago we started to charge the person deemed responsible by the State police when we were called to an accident were the heavy rescue truck was used to extricate people.


And yes, I do consider it just. I am less certain about the Scott Mason case. I do believe it should be handled in court so we can see F&G’s line of reasoning and how they justify the fee recovery.

Keith

A few Stories, many years old

First story....listening to an account from a fellow peakbagger about mountaineering in Canada. He mentioned climbing some large peak - Robson? On the way down his partner slips and breaks his leg. So he high tails it out to the Ranger's station. He enters the office and explains the situation. The ranger says they have a helicopter available and can do a rescue....would he like that? Yes. The ranger then said, the cost is $750 - how would you like to pay for that?....um do you take Visa? Yes. the ranger ran the strip and 1 hr later his buddy was in the parking lot.

Second story, For some time I lived in France. I was active with the Club Alpin Francais - the rough equivalent of the AMC. When you become a member the dues includes rescue insurance. This is std for most European hiking clubs. The annual dues was about $50 vs. $30 for the AMC at the time. I think the current cost for the CAF is $80? Anyway the insurance was for wilderness rescue and it covered evacuation, anywhere, globally.

Taking this further when you downhill ski in Europe, the lift ticket is sold without evacuation service. The evacuation service is separate. This is sometimes called a snow card (carte niege) You typically buy it for the season. If you do not have a carte neige and need evacuation, they bill you. I was told it is not cheap for this service. If you are a CAF member then your membership insurance covers ski area evacuation too so you do not need a snow card.

And even further, I asked an American mountaineering friend how he handled the insurance question in europe. He said the best solution was the Austrian Mountaineering club that has the member insurance and the lowest annual cost. He bought an annual membership when he climbs in Europe - Mt Blanc, Matterhorm type climbs with guides.

Okay, another story. I was climbing Mt Blanc du Tacule and my rope mate witnessed a fall in front of us on our route. The guy fell and broke his leg. Compond fracture. We continued on out route towards him. As we walked we watched the red helicopter come, hover, lower two guys and a basket, leave. After 20min the helicopter returns and takes the injured guy and his partner away. Then it came back anf retrieved the rescuers. An lastly, when blood hits snow it stays red, unlike the browning effect on warm ground.


So there are areas where costs and coverage for rescue is already "worked out" Is it cheap dirt no, but neither is car insurance.

John H Swanson said:

Okay, another story. I was climbing Mt Blanc du Tacule and my rope mate witnessed a fall in front of us on our route. The guy fell and broke his leg. Compond fracture. We continued on out route towards him. As we walked we watched the red helicopter come, hover, lower two guys and a basket, leave. After 20min the helicopter returns and takes the injured guy and his partner away. Then it came back anf retrieved the rescuers.

Click to expand...

Interesting stories, John. The insurance angle is something that's been mentinoed upthread, but I think an important thing to point out is that, in all your anecdotes, these were rescues. Victim location known, injury known...boom: call in the helo and evac them out. The entire operation could take less than an hour with a couple of people (including the pilot).

Contrast this with the Mason case, which was a search. Without looking up all the specific details in this instance, searches can run many days (maybe up to a week?) with dozens (hundreds?) of people involved, as well as machinery (helos, Sno-Cats, quads, etc.) The need for Maine's helo notwithstanding, it's easy to see where a search could be MUCH more expensive than a rescue.

IIRC, some of the currently available "rescue insurance" doesn't cover massive searches, which is unfortunate.

Maybe the thing to do is say that SAR/F&G/Forest Service/etc. will only provide a limited quantity of search and/or rescue services as part of their "normal" duties (say 25 man-hours, just to pull a number out of my ear) and anything over-and-above that will be charged back to the victim.

Whaddya all think about that idea?

John H Swanson said:

An lastly, when blood hits snow it stays red, unlike the browning effect on warm ground.

Click to expand...

Ewwww....

J.Dub said:

Should we consider SAR activities as public service (a la fire/police) or fee-for-service (e.g., private ambulance).

I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer, but I do believe that one's opinion on this question affects how they view the current $25K expense recovery case.

Click to expand...

SAR activities are volunteer. Bringing in a copter is the big expense.

J.Dub said:

As an aside -- I just wanted to thank everybody for their input/comments on this thread. Yes, it's long, but there's a lot of good discussion going on (IMO) without things degenerating into the name-calling and personal attacks found so often on Intreenet forums. It's refreshing, I tell ya!

Click to expand...

Who asked for your opinion ? The only reason no one offers a penney for your thoughts is that you can't make change. I mean, I see the wheel but I think the hamster's died. Was that you at the Drive-In watching "Closed for the Season" ? I better be nice, at least until I'm safe back home on Monday...