It's a rather silly thing to be going to court over (You can bet that each side spent a lot more than $9000 at the trial, never mind the appeal), but the decision seems sound enough. Hiker with multiple recent hip dislocations tries the Franconia Traverse with a full overnight pack during hurricane-force winds, apparently told the rescuers he tried to jump backwards over a waist-high boulder. Fifteen paid rescuers (plus thirty-five volunteers) spent "into the early morning hours" (SAR started at 2 PM) carrying this hiker down the mountain, the hiker got a bill that works out at something like $16/hr/rescuer (again, not counting volunteers) including overtime and benefits. I'd say he got a bargain.
This is not really going to deter anybody. He travelled from Michigan for this trip, he's probably looking at expenses in the low thousands for travel. And if/when he ends up in the hospital, he's going to be billed thousands already (on addition to whatever his insurance covers, I mean). Another $9K isn't going to change anybody's behavior. You could bill for $50K and after that hits the news a few times a year for a while, maybe a few people would decide to hike in New York or Maine instead, but I doubt it would have measurable impact.
Not that the state stands to gain anything much. Suing your customers is no way to shore up your finances. Like most things that legislatures do, this has to be understood as politics, not problem-solving.
Edit: clarification about the backwards jump, which was the incident that actually caused the dislocation. This always sounded like a weird thing for a guy to attempt while tottering along on two canes on a windy day. After reading the defense lawyer's closing summary at trial, it seems what happened is that he tried to surmount a wait-high ledge by, basically, sitting on it. Except it was too tall to just turn and sit, so he had to jump up. The defense argued that this particular maneuver was safe, according to medical advice he'd received, and that he maintained his legs in a posture designed to protect his hip while performing the maneuver. The prosecution contended that the tale of the defensive leg position was a later fabrication. The trial court, I think it's safe to say, had doubts about Mr. Bacon's truthfulness.
I think the trial court concluded that a hip dislocation was just waiting to happen, regardless of whether the particular maneuver was negligent or not. He'd already slipped and lost his tent, the trail was getting steeper, and at his pace he would have been on that ridge at least another five hours while the weather got worse and worse. The appeals court quotes the rescuer as saying the wind knocked him (the [experienced and very fit] rescuer) down repeatedly. The implication is that it would be nigh impossible for Bacon to avoid dangerous hip position while being tossed around.
