Comments on: This Is Why We Cannot Have Nice Things

By: Gordo

Gordo — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:23:48 +0000

It's in the news again and the sue-ees have filed statements of defence (taking up vaulable time & money from their core business of saving people's dumb asses.)

I think Teresa could well be right !

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:50:08 +0000

Few things pop into mind.

First off all, maybe the Crown (whose job is to do what is in the best interests of the state IE everyone in Canada) should threaten to prosecute Mr Gilles with criminal negligence reslting in death, unless he drops the suit. I see that being 100% legal as it is in the best interests of the state to have this lawsuit fail and as a reuslt allow our SAR teams to remain active and operational, not to have them close shop due to frivilous lawsuits by people who placed themselves in harms way.

Second, I hope the family/friends/community of Mr Gilles have enough back bone to tell him how ridiculous this suit is. It is his fault they went out of bounds. It is his fault they werent properly equipped. It is his fault they didn't know proper SAF procedures and to stay near the SOS signs. The whole entire situation is his/their fault. These people should have the backbone to confront him with that in order to allow the rest of Canada and her tourists to enjoy the very same SAR options that has saved countless lives FOR FRR BY VOLUNTEERS.

By: Short Quips: June 29, 2009 « chain of causation

Short Quips: June 29, 2009 « chain of causation — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:23:04 +0000

[...] existence for failure to promptly rescue because of my lack of sense to stay by my own SOS signs. This Is Why We Cannot Have Nice Things [...]

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:39:34 +0000

I'd be careful about expressing that sort of belief Teresa.

By: Teresa

Teresa — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:29:11 +0000

Okay okay, I am embarrased to be from the same province as Mr. Blackburn, BUT I believe he chose to go out of bounds, I believe he checked out of the hotel and did not notify anyone where they were going, I believe they moved their car from the resort parking lot, I believe that NO ONE except him and his wife were responsible for thier predicament and her death. I beleive that this lawsuit should be thrown out.
It is possible the reason he ( a self proclaim survivalist) took his wife out of bounds and kept moving away from the SOS signs was to get rid of his wife, collect the insurance ( double in the case of accidental death) and then figured out their was even more money there!

By: Nash

Nash — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:17:53 +0000

What next….? Suicide attempts suing doctors for saving their lives but not stitching them up perfectly? Maybe it's the Lawyer who should be criticised here. Like all bottom feeders (lawyers) it's just another way at paying the rent… Sue someone, everyone. At least that way they are more likely to get some cash.
As for the RCMP…. they may have been justified in not investigating the report, as they more than likely get hundreds of unfounded reports… but at least they are covered by the Government when it all goes wrong. As for Mr Blackburn. You or your wife made a stupid mistake that day. No one told you to ski where you did. Your wife, family and you paid for that mistake. Don't now start trying to clear your own conscience in blaming others, especially on the advice of a lawyer. It will take you down a slippery slope and create a bitter man and family.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:42:01 +0000

Note that the above is not the "Al" who comments here frequently. I'm sure OUR Al would do the right thing, law be damned.

By: AL

AL — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:30:08 +0000

Actually as a physician I WOULD WALK BY SOMEONE IN A BURNING CAR. I assume a lawyer will be along in a minute to save the fellow, administer CPR, find the correct hospital in which to send him, and find the negligent party that caused all this ruckus.

By: alexofthefrozennorth

alexofthefrozennorth — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:49:05 +0000

Let's also remember that it was Golden Search and Rescue (yes, the group he is suing) that conducted the resuce that got his sorry butt out of the woods. Nice way to say thanks.

By: GMan

GMan — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:05:06 +0000

Yes I'm sure he's going through a very tough time right now. But that's no reason to sue everybody. Yeah yeah he lost his wife, the rescue could've been conducted sooner, bla bla bla, but...he went out of bound to begin with! You go out of bound, you're on your own. I'm not gonna jump off a tall building and then sue the developer for not having safety measures around the building to make sure I don't crush my spine.

By: John M. Hochfelder, Esq.

John M. Hochfelder, Esq. — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:38:39 +0000

We have good samaritan laws in NY and we have a gross negligence standard for volunteer ambulance corps. That doesn't stop some of my colleagues from suing in delay cases – when the volunteer corps gets there too late to help (e.g., in heart attack cases). Plaintiffs lose those cases and even though the corps have insurance there is a significant cost for the defense. Good argument for loser pays system, I say.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:54:40 +0000

While I think Blackburn is an idiot for first getting lost and then abandoning his distress signal, the person who bears the most responsibility for the lawsuit is the greedy lawyer expecting to collect a fee even though he knows this suit will be fruitless for his client (who will stillk pay him).

By: Tribal Elder

Tribal Elder — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:37:02 +0000

In the US, Civil Air Patrol (CAP) volunteers do 80+% of missing aircraft searches. However, these search missions (and many of CAP's training missions) are at USAF request. When performing a mission at USAF request, CAP is statutorily an auxiliary, and covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If it's an Air Force mission, Uncle Sam is our 'insurer'.

By: Sue volunteer search-and-rescue teams enough…

Sue volunteer search-and-rescue teams enough… — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:39:55 +0000

[...] …and maybe they'll go away. [...]

By: Peggy

Peggy — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:00:46 +0000

I've been tracking the story and from what I can tell, the main reason for the lawsuit is that the SOS signs in the snow were not investigated by police which resulted in a delayed rescue.

The part of the story that Mr Blackburn is forgetting to address is the fact that while they did mark SOS's in the snow, he and his wife did not stay at the locations but kept moving on leaving abandoned mark after abandoned mark. Authorities did find the marks and did several fly overs looking for anyone who could have left those marks, but in the absence of a missing persons report or spotting anyone at or near the SOS's, it was decided not to risk the lives of SAR personnel on a follow up ground search, over something that had the markings of a hoax rather than a legitimate problem.

In a nutshell: if they had stayed put, they'd have been found within a couple of days and no one would have died.

It's a shame that Mr. blackburn lost his wife but this case is a joke and if successful will only lead to a diminished SAR and more lives lost as less people will be willing to do the job and insurance takes precedence over equipment and training.