Contact
Subscribe


Be prepared … to forfeit twenty-five large

Jul 18, 2009
By .
Effluvia, Irksome

Glad you didn't break that ankle. Here, lemme break that back:

A plucky Eagle Scout who probably should get his own episode on the Discovery Channel’s “Survivorman” instead has been hit with a $25,234 rescue bill – after he lasted three days in wintry conditions with an injured ankle on Mount Washington.

The law in New Hampshire provides that the state may bill for the cost of a rescue if the person rescued was negligent.  Scott Mason knew that he had twisted his ankle a bit, but he also knew he had good training.  He knew he was leaving the trail he had intended to take, but he also thought he was taking a shortcut.

It's not immediately obvious to me that a reasonable person would always turn back under these conditions, especially if the sprain seemed minor and the way forward seemed navigable.  But that's not how Maj. Tim Acerno sees it.  He oversees revenue enhancement law enforcement for Fish and Game, who have given Mason "30 days to cough up the cash":

Mason was negligent in continuing up the mountain with an injury and veering off the marked path, Acerno said. Negligence, he said, is based on judging what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.

"When I twist my ankle, I turn around and come down. He kept going up," Acerno said.

On that judgment hinges a $25k fine, due in a month from a kid who managed to save his own bacon after getting lost in the woods of New Hampshire.  It's not as if this Eagle Scout was a high-handed, fist-shaking loner setting out to survive on random roots and unrefined idealism.   He just got lost.

And why's the fee so high?

Mason’s rescue was particularly expensive because the helicopters the state typically used were unavailable, and a helicopter from Maine had to be brought in, Acerno said.

Clearly, it's Mason's fault that Acerno's pool of whirlybirds isn't big enough.  Maybe the $25,000.00 can serve as down payment on another one.

Last 5 posts by David

17 Comments
Tags

17 Comments

  1. Dave (ND)  •  Jul 18, 2009 @1:46 pm

    I'm not sure I get why the tax payers of New Hampshire should be expected to foot the bill for emergency rescues due to poor decisionmaking.

    Is he special because he's an Eagle Scout?

  2. David  •  Jul 18, 2009 @1:57 pm

    Should they also bill survivors of traffic accidents? Those are often, if not always, a result of poor decision making.

    Accidents happen. Bill the "thrill-seekers hoping to surf the most difficult ocean wave, to bushwhack through treacherous back-country terrain or to catch the biggest ice-water fish" as one reasonable guy would say. But help a decent guy when he's down.

  3. Marty  •  Jul 18, 2009 @2:15 pm

    that's exactly the link I was thinking of David… the issue I have- he wasn't thrill-seeking or being reckless. he was trying to be self-reliant. the state is most certainly inflating the costs associated with this rescue.

  4. Dave (ND)  •  Jul 18, 2009 @2:25 pm

    If you subsidize risk taking, you get more people taking risks. I would prefer that it not come out of my taxes. I suppose that's why we all get to vote.

  5. Cloudesley Shovell  •  Jul 18, 2009 @3:13 pm

    I'm with Dave . . . a person assuming the risk assumes the risk . . . there is no duty on the public at large, acting through the gov't, to perform a rescue.

    If the public decides to assume the duty of rescuing people, the public ought to assume the costs. Equity does not favor the volunteer.

    On the other hand, if his parents asked for the rescue, maybe they ought to be the ones paying for it.

  6. Reuven  •  Jul 18, 2009 @3:21 pm

    Bravo for New Hampshire. The organization he professes to be a member of has been mooching off the public dole for their private religious organization long enough! They even electrocute people on our military bases (see here for details) and expect We, the Taxpayers to clean up their mess.

  7. David  •  Jul 18, 2009 @3:38 pm

    @Dave (ND):

    Remember that the next time you drive on public roads, are hit by another driver at fault, and expect intervention from the authorities (police, fire, EMT, and other branches of rescue).

    If you drive, you assume the risk. But following your logic, others have no stake in your risky behavior and do not owe you (and themselves) the cost of a fire extinguisher when your engine bursts into flames.

    Fact is that the state shouldn't do everything for every taker of every risk; but the state also shouldn't do nothing. Between those extremes of anarchy and nannarchy lies prudence, which dictates that some state Samaritanism gives adequate expression to the legitimate interest that others have in bailing you out when accident strikes (and even in saving you from yourself when you touch fire if, in doing so, you're merely ignorant and not willfully obtuse or defiant).

    @Cloudesley Shovell:
    It seems to me that there's a public duty of Samaritanism up to a point. But even if that were not the case, the public is free to assume that collective life-saving responsibility. As you say, "If the public decides to assume the duty of rescuing people, the public ought to assume the costs." That's a good principle, and it appears that the public of New Hampshire, through its legislative representatives, has made such a decision. They're willing to cover the cost unless the rescued person was negligent.

    My complaint here is that it's by no means obvious that the guy being milked for 25 grand was negligent.

    @Reuven
    That reciprocity is only fair, since military operatives electrocute people at cub scout meetings.

  8. Old Geezer  •  Jul 18, 2009 @4:05 pm

    I was a volunteer firefighter/EMT before I became too old to leap tall buildings. While we would respond to anyone in trouble, it did not come without a cost. It cost us in fuel, time away from our "other" jobs, medical supplies, training expenses…… If the recipient of our services was clearly at fault and was insured, there was a good chance we would ask for reimbursement of these expenses. Although neither of us knows all of the circumstances here, we can surmise that an Eagle Scout has been trained at one time or another to stay on the trail. He was probable trained to go back the way he came if lost. If I recall the Mt. Washington trail, there are signs telling you not to hike alone and to be prepared for inclement weather. These too are basic staples of Boy Scout training.That he injured himself was unfortunate. That he caused others to have to come to his aid, thereby incurring expense, goes beyond assuming the risk. It speaks to foolhardiness. I assume he was taken to the hospital. By your thinking, he doesn't owe the hospital anything either. Right? Or is it just a certain class of care providers who should get stuck with the bill?

  9. Patrick  •  Jul 18, 2009 @5:08 pm

    David, typically drivers who are involved in auto accidents are billed for state / private intervention: ambulance fees, traffic fines, towing, and fluid disposal.

    25 large for a helicopter seems high, but a single vehicle auto accident can easily generate 1 large even if no one is seriously injured.

  10. Reuven  •  Jul 18, 2009 @9:26 pm

    I knew someone who was involved in a 1-car accident with a telephone pole, and was asked to pay for the cost of the pole. Simply because this guy was a member of the Fascist Youth Group called "The Boy Scouts Of America" doesn't mean he should get a free ride. In fact, as "Old Geezer" points out, it makes him MORE liable, because he no doubt has training. The learn all sorts of things in Scouting.

  11. David  •  Jul 19, 2009 @6:26 am

    @Reuven The fact that he was an Eagle Scout is mere flavoring. And Old Geezer is mistaken. Being a Scout might've led him to "stay on the trail" if he were a Cub; as an Eagle, he might've had greater confidence, consistent with more advanced training, that he could competently follow what he took to be a shortcut.

    But that's beside the point. The real issue at hand is this: if you have sprained your ankle, but the sprain seems minor enough that you decide to scale back your 17-mile hike rather than cancel it, are you negligent?

    If New Hampshire law regards it as negligent when you don't turn back because of a minor sprain, what else counts as negligent under that standard? A stubbed toe? A paper cut?

    I maintain that Acerno's threshold of "proceeding to do what no reasonable person would do" was not met here.

  12. Reuven  •  Jul 19, 2009 @8:35 am

    Perhaps you think that "Eagle Scout" is mere flavoring, as it should be. But both "David" our blog host and the article he quoted from felt obligated to mention it several time. For anyone to think that the Church you chose to belong to should have any influence on what public services you pay for is offensive to me.

    I certainly don't want to be taxed or charged differently because I'm a member of a particular Synagogue.

    Members of the "Boy Scouts Of America", a Church with their own liturgy and religious tests should be treated no differently than members of any other.

    And the irony here is that organization professes to train people for activities like getting lost in the woods.

  13. Corporal Lint  •  Jul 20, 2009 @5:18 am

    @David A Cub Scout might be excused for striking off on his own, an Eagle Scout should damn well know that rules # 1,2 and 3 of hiking are STAY ON THE TRAIL. Especially on Mt Washington, which kills people on a regular basis. *Every* hikers-lost-in-the-wilderness case in involves inexperienced people who think they know what they're doing and so take "shortcuts" like this one.

    I don't know anything about liability law, but I know hiking very well. Stay on the damn trail.

  14. bw  •  Jul 20, 2009 @9:55 am

    Keep in mind that the single most common stupid risk behavior in the country, for which the taxpayers bear the consequences most of the time, is unprotected sex. Think of all the taxpayer money spent on fighting STD's and supporting all the kids that result. This money typically ends up benefitting people who never have and never will pay taxes. When you eliminate that subsidy for stupid risks, THEN it's time to discuss the risks taken by productive taxpaying members of society in the pursuit of personal growth.

  15. Robert  •  Jul 20, 2009 @10:39 am

    @bw:

    While it's unfortunate we have to pay for "unprotected sex" your analogy is imperfect.

    1. Money paid for STD programs is an attempt to SAVE MONEY by reducing the spread of STDs. (You can argue the effectiveness of these programs, but it's clear that's the intent). Also, people with means are expected to pay for their own STD treatment, as they do for any medical procedure.

    2. Only people without means have the public support children that arise as a result of unprotected sex. People with means are expected to PAY FOR THEM!

    3. Even I, as a conservative, don't want to see kids starve to death simply because they have irresponsible parents. We must, as a society, provide some safety net for kids. (Aganin, maybe they'd be better served by removing them from these homes and putting them in orphanages, but the basic principle of providing for children is the same.)

    A person of means who gets pregnant or gets Herpes is expected to pay for the consquences. It's only the poor that get bailed out.

    This hiker was rescued without first checking his ability to pay. He was then sent a bill. If he cannot pay it, he won't go to jail because we have no debtors prisons here. (Well, except if its your child support you can't pay, but that's another topic.)

  16. bw  •  Jul 22, 2009 @6:54 pm

    Prevention or cure, the fact remains that the taxpayers incur huge costs because people choose to take irresponsible risks. If risky sexual behavior was less frequent, less money would be needed for STD prevention. As for means testing, if Bill Gates was hiking in the wilderness, he'd pay to have his own helicopter follow him and wouldn't need public rescue services.

    Bottom line, every day, the taxpayers shell out far more than this rescue cost because people who will probably never be net contributors to society chose to take stupid risks in the pursuit of getting off or getting high, and until that ends, I see no problem with the very infrequent subsidy of risks taken in the pursuit of personal betterment and growth by individuals who either are or likely will be very much net contributors.

  17. Rich Rostrom  •  Jul 23, 2009 @5:40 pm

    This kid should have known better, being an Eagle Scout. His foolishness cost the taxpayers a fairly large chunk of money. I don't know that his family should get stuck for the entire amount, but they should pay something non-trivial. Then future hikers might be more prudent.

    bw, Robert: The issue isn't STD prevention, it's the large public-health expenditures for treatment of STDs spread by risky behavior. E.g. the provision of anti-retrovirals to HIV carriers.

    bw: what makes you so certain that this sort of expense is rare?

    David: driving on a public street or highway is commonplace activity; it does not subject one to extraordinary risks. A citizen has reasonable expectation of rescue services in the case of an accident in the course of commonplace activity.

    Hiking the backwoods in the middle of winter, alone, off-trail, while injured, is not commonplace and does incur extraordinary risks. Persons who make such choices should face consequences.

    I am a bit shocked here by the venomous hostility to the Boy Scouts shown by one commenter.