How do we keep folks from hiking Saturday?

[skiguy]

Negligence is a standard.

I agree. My semantics were probably not correct, but I do think Dr. "D" describes better my intent of what I was trying to convey. Yet again the standard within the Whites IMHO is still up for interpretation because of the reasons I already cited.

 

[Nessmuk]

A standard that is argued in Courts in every county, in America and decided by an everchanging body of jurists as directed by a judge and after listening to two smart people argue against one another. Yes, sometimes the case seems stupid, however, one of the smart people have to raise a shadow of doubt, or perhaps in certain circumstances a reasonable person might think that's okay. This standard is an evolving and changing term that is different in NYC than it is in Butte, Houston or Nome.

If people started taking selfies shirtless in the winter on summits and posting them, and you could if you layered up immediately afterwards, could one assume from evidence on the internet, shirts were not necessary? I see there is a sub-group of hikers who are having a beer on the summit, how much alcohol is okay and how much is stupid when walking?

So Where does this activity fall in the continuum?

https://www.salemnews.com/news/taki...cle_c702b4f2-ab17-11ed-9da7-afcd5917252e.html

 

[Mike P.]

So Where does this activity fall in the continuum?

https://www.salemnews.com/news/taki...cle_c702b4f2-ab17-11ed-9da7-afcd5917252e.html

The link goes to a fundraising polar plunge, is that what you thought it was? Looks like it was done correctly and people came prepared.

 

[B the Hiker]

I wrote this in an earlier thread (https://www.vftt.org/forums/showthr...-HikeSafe-Card/page3&highlight=recklessness):

# # #
"Negligence" in the abstract is the failure to exercise the level of care or caution that is expected of a reasonable person.

Typically, when we see the term reckless and negligent, they are used in the following scale: intent, knowledge, reckless, negligent. Intent means one intended to do something harmful. Knowledge means one knew the harm would result, but one did it for some other reason than to cause the harm. (I didn't mean to kill the person when I drove over him, I just wanted to get home, although I knew that by driving up my driveway with him having fallen on it, I would kill him). Reckless means engaging in a level of risk taking that one should have known was likely to cause harm. Negligent means engaging in a level of risk taking that one didn't know was likely to cause harm, but that a reasonable person should have.

So the four standards above are on a scale, and gross negligence is typically not used when we see those four categories, instead, we see it specifically when a state has not adopted those categories. Gross negligence is sometimes synonymous with "reckless."

So we shouldn't compare gross negligence with recklessness. Most likely the terms appeared in one way and then the other because when the bill was being considered, it hadn't yet gone to the legislature's staff attorneys, who realized that in New Hampshire, one term or the other is more appropriate given the state's legal regime, but they most likely the same thing for these purposes: someone put themselves and/or others in a position that a reasonable person should have realized was inappropriately dangerous.

So if you go out a "reasonable" trip (and to define it further will depend on what a jury thinks that means in the given instance), and one gets into an accident, it doesn't necessarily mean one was negligent. If one is not prepared to deal with that accident, then one might be negligent. If one goes out under conditions a "reasonable" person would have deemed unreasonably risky and one needs assistance, then one might be deemed reckless.

Going out a winter Presidential Traverse with a group under perfect weather, and having an accident is not negligent. Not bringing appropriate gear might be negligent. Going out in a total whiteout with massive winds and extremely cold temps, with appropriate gear, might still be deemed reckless. Going out over an area that has an avalanche warning might be deemed knowing, and going out with the intent of causing an avalanche could be deemed intentional.

Brian

# # #

At this point no standards have been set. The system has not been exercised to any degree to set standards and or precedents on that continuum as most cases have been settled out of court.

At this point, there have been hundreds upon hundreds of rescues over the past few years, and some who have been rescued have been billed and some have not. While every case needs to be examined under the totality of the circumstances, I suspect the officers who have to determine whether to charge for negligence or not probably have a pretty clear understanding of what is negligent and what is not at this point.



Therefore IMO as stated before we don't need to do anything more to keep people out of the woods as the system in place successfully worked.

The problem is that we have no idea who went out on that day. A tiny fraction of hikers report on NETC. People may have gone out and not needed to be rescued, and wisely thought to keep quiet about it, lest they be thought reckless (or just plain unwise) by others.


This standard is an evolving and changing term that is different in NYC than it is in Butte, Houston or Nome.

But no one in New Hampshire cares what those people are doing. The only question is what is reasonable under the condition in New Hampshire under which someone went out. Saying, "This is how we do it in Houston" will get a person charged with negligence in New Hampshire nowhere, if it wasn't reasonable for the conditions.


If people started taking selfies shirtless in the winter on summits and posting them, and you could if you layered up immediately afterwards, could one assume from evidence on the internet, shirts were not necessary?

I would argue that you are asking the wrong question. If someone took off their shirt and needed a rescue afterwards, the question is not how many people do something, but only whether that action was reasonable. Example: many people drive under the influence, but doing so is never reasonable.


I see there is a sub-group of hikers who are having a beer on the summit, how much alcohol is okay and how much is stupid when walking?

To determine this, ask how a reasonable person would reply. I suggest that if a hiker is too intoxicated to walk, we know the standard. No need for a BAC reading here. This is why, by the way, is why if a driver refuses a blood alcohol test after failing the initial tests, they can still be charged.

All of this came out of my statement that the standard for negligence would be higher under that day's conditions. I hope folks understand why now. Negligence depends on what is reasonable under the conditions.

All the best,

Brian

 

[skiguy]

I wrote this in an earlier thread (https://www.vftt.org/forums/showthr...-HikeSafe-Card/page3&highlight=recklessness):

# # #
"Negligence" in the abstract is the failure to exercise the level of care or caution that is expected of a reasonable person.

Typically, when we see the term reckless and negligent, they are used in the following scale: intent, knowledge, reckless, negligent. Intent means one intended to do something harmful. Knowledge means one knew the harm would result, but one did it for some other reason than to cause the harm. (I didn't mean to kill the person when I drove over him, I just wanted to get home, although I knew that by driving up my driveway with him having fallen on it, I would kill him). Reckless means engaging in a level of risk taking that one should have known was likely to cause harm. Negligent means engaging in a level of risk taking that one didn't know was likely to cause harm, but that a reasonable person should have.

So the four standards above are on a scale, and gross negligence is typically not used when we see those four categories, instead, we see it specifically when a state has not adopted those categories. Gross negligence is sometimes synonymous with "reckless."

So we shouldn't compare gross negligence with recklessness. Most likely the terms appeared in one way and then the other because when the bill was being considered, it hadn't yet gone to the legislature's staff attorneys, who realized that in New Hampshire, one term or the other is more appropriate given the state's legal regime, but they most likely the same thing for these purposes: someone put themselves and/or others in a position that a reasonable person should have realized was inappropriately dangerous.

So if you go out a "reasonable" trip (and to define it further will depend on what a jury thinks that means in the given instance), and one gets into an accident, it doesn't necessarily mean one was negligent. If one is not prepared to deal with that accident, then one might be negligent. If one goes out under conditions a "reasonable" person would have deemed unreasonably risky and one needs assistance, then one might be deemed reckless.

Going out a winter Presidential Traverse with a group under perfect weather, and having an accident is not negligent. Not bringing appropriate gear might be negligent. Going out in a total whiteout with massive winds and extremely cold temps, with appropriate gear, might still be deemed reckless. Going out over an area that has an avalanche warning might be deemed knowing, and going out with the intent of causing an avalanche could be deemed intentional.

Brian

# # #



At this point, there have been hundreds upon hundreds of rescues over the past few years, and some who have been rescued have been billed and some have not. While every case needs to be examined under the totality of the circumstances, I suspect the officers who have to determine whether to charge for negligence or not probably have a pretty clear understanding of what is negligent and what is not at this point.



Therefore IMO as stated before we don't need to do anything more to keep people out of the woods as the system in place successfully worked.

The problem is that we have no idea who went out on that day. A tiny fraction of hikers report on NETC. People may have gone out and not needed to be rescued, and wisely thought to keep quiet about it, lest they be thought reckless (or just plain unwise) by others.


This standard is an evolving and changing term that is different in NYC than it is in Butte, Houston or Nome.

But no one in New Hampshire cares what those people are doing. The only question is what is reasonable under the condition in New Hampshire under which someone went out. Saying, "This is how we do it in Houston" will get a person charged with negligence in New Hampshire nowhere, if it wasn't reasonable for the conditions.


If people started taking selfies shirtless in the winter on summits and posting them, and you could if you layered up immediately afterwards, could one assume from evidence on the internet, shirts were not necessary?

I would argue that you are asking the wrong question. If someone took off their shirt and needed a rescue afterwards, the question is not how many people do something, but only whether that action was reasonable. Example: many people drive under the influence, but doing so is never reasonable.


I see there is a sub-group of hikers who are having a beer on the summit, how much alcohol is okay and how much is stupid when walking?

To determine this, ask how a reasonable person would reply. I suggest that if a hiker is too intoxicated to walk, we know the standard. No need for a BAC reading here. This is why, by the way, is why if a driver refuses a blood alcohol test after failing the initial tests, they can still be charged.

All of this came out of my statement that the standard for negligence would be higher under that day's conditions. I hope folks understand why now. Negligence depends on what is reasonable under the conditions.

All the best,

Brian

Well stated. Thank you for the clarifications.

 

[s.e.charles]

Funny, I was thinking of doing the same thing down here in RI.

flatlanders were surfing @ 8:00 AM next day in narragansett