Wilderness & Environmental Medicine Journal

Volume 20 # 4 has some great articles

The Wilderness Medical Society has published its latest Wilderness & Environmental Medicine Journal with some great articles.

  • Injuries and Medical Conditions Among Kayakers Paddling in the Sea Environment
  • A Comparison of Bacterial Colony-Forming Units in Water Bottles and Hydration Bags Among Outdoor Enthusiasts
  • Love and Fear of Heights: the Pathophysiology and Psychology of Height Imbalance
  • Determinants of Summiting Success and Acute Mountain Sickness on Mt Kilimanjaro (5895 M)

You must be a member to access the current issue. Membership information can be found here.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law 720 Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com


Vail and USFS hunting down pirates on the slopes – illegal guiding activities

Teaching skiing or boarding on US Forest Service land without a permit or on someone else’s permit without their permission is pirating and a violation of the law.

The Denver Post in an article Resorts run Resorts run stings to nab unauthorized instructors on their slopes brings the issue of “private” ski instructors to the front. Ski Instructors who are not wearing the ski resorts uniform or employed by the resort are pirates; people guiding on federal land without a permit.

Vail has had enough and in conjunction with the US Forest Service has started cracking down on the practice. Pirates that are caught are fined $545 (or more) and banned by Vail from all of their resorts for life.

These article follows an article on how Vail is catching people trying to sneak onto the lifts with other peoples season passes.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law 720 Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com


They are getting serious: Leave the scene of a skier v. skier (or boarder) collision and go to jail

Wanted Posters and Sketch Artists used in a Bear Mountain Resort Hit and Run.

Bear Mountain Resort is looking for a mail snowboarder who struck a 9-year-old female on January 2, 2010 at approximately 1:00 PM. A sketch of the alleged snowboarder is here!

The suspect is described as a white male adult, 25-30 years of age, approximately 5’10” – 6’2″ tall, wearing a black and white jacket, black pants, and using a black snowboard.

Anyone having information regarding the collision or identity of the suspect is asked to contact the Big Bear Sheriff’s Station at (909) 866-0100. Information can also be reported anonymously by calling WE-TIP at (800) 78-CRIME.

It is unknown if this is a new attitude about collisions on the slopes or if this is a special case. The victim received a compound fracture of her femur and several facial injuries, all of which were not life threatening.

This is a real change from how hit and run boarders and skiers were treated in the past.


You can’t cover everything, trying will only prove it and set you up for litigation

Many times trade associations are encouraging you to write massive risk management plans. “Experts” are out there offering their services in doing so. You start this process and either get bogged down or finish a plan where you believe you have it covered. But you don’t. You can’t discover every way that people can get hurt on or at your program.

David Apgar is an author and researcher who talks about the risks of absolute risks. In his book Relevance: Hitting Your Goals by Knowing What Matters Dr. Apgar stated “No amount of brainstorming or help from an experienced consultant will unearth a complete set of risks facing a [business].”

David Apgar is the author of “Risk Intelligence: Learning to Manage What We Don’t Know” (Harvard Business Press 2006) and “Relevance: Hitting Your Goals by Knowing What Matters” (Jossey-Bass, 2008).

If you want to prove this to yourself, start with an easy example. Write down all of the things that can happen to you while sitting at your computer reading this article. How long is that list? Did you include any of the following:

Eye Strain,

Electrocution

Your chair breaking,

Carpal Tunnel

Paper cut

Allergic reaction to the fumes from the computer

Have we scratched the surface? What else did you come up with that I did not? Will any of these issues change if you add weather to the equation? Will the chances increase, will the risk increase, will the severity increase, and will your response change?

Now take this list and start adding to if for outdoors, add speed to the equation, weather, and poor judgment. Your risk management plan will have a new name, Encyclopedia and will match the encyclopedia in size.

Once you have your plan written, you must keep it up to date. Will your risk management plan need to change based on the experience of your staff or the training they have received? What if you change the location of part of the program? Any change in the law may affect how the plan is written.

Eventually you will have a staff equal to that of the encyclopedia to maintain and update the risk management plan.

The solution is twofold to develop a framework for dealing with problems

    Develop program for dealing with all issues

    Train your employees to deal with everything

    Hire people able to deal with the issues.

The Federal Land Management Agencies and Emergency response programs have figured this out and dealt with it. They developed the Incident Command System. Instead of detailing exactly what to do when something happens, the developed a program that details how to deal, no matter what the program.

You can take the first class in the Incident Command System online in a few minutes (most federal agencies offer the course on line) and learn how the system works. Once you learn that you can develop your risk management plan like the ICS system. A plan that works not matter what happens.

In the mean time, let me know how that encyclopedia is coming.


Always Identify Everyone on a Trip

Always Identify Everyone on a Trip

Not their names, but their position to you so you know how they are going to sue you.

We do not look at volunteers as potential litigants. They are there to help because they want to. Yet they sue. If they are an employee pay them, if they are a client have them pay, and if they are neither always have them sign a release.

This happens a dozen times a year. You have someone on your trip who is not really an employee, maybe be a volunteer, a chaperone, or a friend of an employee. If they are not being paid, they must sign a release, even if you do not pay them.

In this case, a schoolteacher was a volunteer chaperone on a ski trip. The ski trip was being run by the school district. The plaintiff/volunteer fell and injured her shoulder. She then filed a worker’s compensation claim and won because she was acting in the capacity of a teacher at the time of her injury.

The amount of the award was not reported. However, her medical bills will be paid, and she will receive 60% of her pay while she was off work because of the injury.

For other blog posts on similar topics see: You’ve got to be kidding: Chaperone liable for the death of a girl on a trip

To see this article go to City found liable for ski injury Peabody High teacher fell while supervising a school trip in 2004.


UIAA publishes new paper on Hypoxia (lack of oxygen)

The Union Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme (UIAA) has issued a new paper on the effects of Hypoxia. Hypoxia is a lack of oxygen that occurs when climbing at high altitudes where the UIAA has been coordinating research for years. However, the effects can occur in other areas or work events. The paper is a first attempt to locate and coordinate all research into the area.

The press release on the report can be found at Advice paper issued on hypoxia and the report can be downloaded at Work in Hypoxic Conditions.


LA Physician who stopped in front of cyclists sentenced to Five years

Update of Criminal Trial Starts this week for MD who pulls in front of cyclists and slams on his brakes.

Christopher Thomas Thompson was sentenced to five years in jail for his conviction of five felonies and on misdemeanor. Thompson, 60, pulled in front of cyclists twice and slammed his brakes. The second time he severely injured two cyclists.

See L.A. road rage doctor gets five years

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law 720 Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com


Letter to the Editor: Wilderness and Environmental Medicine

June 23, 2009

Jonna Barry, Managing Editor

Wilderness and Environmental Medicine

1505 N. Royer Street

Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Via Email: bob.norris@stanford.edu
Re:    Wilderness and Environmental Medicine Volume 20, Number 2, 2009
Wilderness First Aid: Is there an “Industry Standard”?
Dear Dr. Norris:

I read with appreciation, interest and concern the article Wilderness First Aid: Is There an “Industry Standard”? in the latest Wilderness and Environmental Medicine. I have the following comments about the article suggestions about future articles and research.

For a defense oriented attorney and possibility for the plaintiff’s bar the use of the word standard creates issues. The word in everyday life, means a reference point or median, it has a different definition in the law. A standard in the law is the lowest level of acceptable level of doing or not doing something that a reasonable person would accept. It may not be the median or average. As such, a statement that something is the standard which is not the lowest acceptable level creates a path for a lawsuit for anyone who may not meet the median but is above the lowest acceptable level of work.

This is important because a violation of a standard is the first step in proving negligence. In general in outdoor recreation activities, the hardest thing to prove is a violation of a standard. By putting in writing what the standard’s are for a particular activity, we have made the plaintiff’s job that much easier.

Plaintiff’s lawyers grasp on to an article using the term from respected publications, such as this Journal, as proof that the outfitter or guide did not meet the industry standard. It then falls on the defense to prove, and normally at a much greater cost, at trial, that the standard is not at issue or was not the legal definition used in the article.

Consequently I was happy to see the article did not really reach a conclusion about what the standard is above that of simple first aid courses.

A major issue is what is wilderness first aid? There few legal references to a definition of first aid, those that do simply reference the American Red Cross definition: immediate and temporary treatment of a victim of sudden illness or injury while awaiting the arrival of medical aid. One court described first aid as anything that did not require training, consequently CPR was not first aid because it required training. L.A. Fitness International, Llc, v. Mayer, 980 So. 2d 550; 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5893; 33 Fla. L. Weekly D 1136. If a court determines that an act done was outside the definition of first aid, there is no defense for a non-licensed health care provider. Many wilderness first aid courses teach techniques that are clearly outside of the simple definition of first aid: immediate and temporary treatment. The Wilderness Medical Society Practice Guidelines for Wilderness Emergency Care, 5th at present is the only document that provides wilderness first aid advice for those wanting to understand what is and is not first aid.

Many times articles such as these want to improve the care for those injured in the outdoors. Articles rarely accomplish that goal and mostly encourage litigation, which also fails to accomplish that goal. What does occur is an increase in litigation and a decrease in participation. The Boy Scouts of America and Sierra Club were both referenced in the article. Both groups are led by volunteers. Volunteers do not have more time to take more than a basic first aid course while all ready taking several hours each week to volunteer and then spending your vacation with a group of youth cannot be stretched much father.

This is a classic example of we need to protect more kids by requiring more leader training which protects the kids because they now never leave the city. Volunteers have only so many hours and kids have too many chances to get hurt.

The article speaks to statutes or governmental regulations referencing first aid requirements. There is a misnomer that a legal standard in the industry can be higher or lower than a state statute. The standard for a particular industry is the state statute and in this case the statutes that were recognized in the article would be the standard for medical training needed in that occupation.

The article did miss several dozen state statutes requiring first aid training for guides and outfitters, as well as all federal requirements. Most states put first aid requirements into specific statutes affecting a specific activity. As an example Colorado has no state statute requiring first aid training for outfitters and guides, but the state has no state statutes for outfitters and guides. Colorado does have a statute controlling the first aid requirements for whitewater outfitters and guides. C.R.S. §§ 33-32-105.5 that requires a standard first aid card to work on a river. Colorado horse packer’s statute C.R.S. §§ 12-55.5-103.5 have a similar requirement.

Various state and federal land managers have specific first aid requirements for permittees or concessionaires working on state or federal land. This varies by land manager and the type of service being offered.

The article mentioned the marketing term “wilderness first responder” (WFR) which is not recognized by any state or federal agency as a first aid course. Many state Good Samaritan laws provide coverage for first aid based on the provider of the first aid training. No state Good Samaritan law recognizes WFR or WFR providers as providing training that would be protected by the Good Samaritan law. See Connecticut C.G.S. § 52-557(h) or Illinois I.C.S.A § 745 ILCS 49/67.

Many state statutes require the regulatory agency to specify the first aid training required. Fishing guides in California pursuant to Fish & G Code § 2542 specifies the agency shall prescribe the first aid training required of guides. Maine requires a first aid training M.R.S. § 12853 but leaves the level of training to the regulatory agency with a different level of first aid training for trip leaders M.R.S. § 12860.

Statutes once enacted are difficult to change so many of the statutes requiring first aid training are out of date. Worse are those that specify the items to be in first aid kits. California Gen Ed § 32043 requires a snakebite kit on field trips for some school outings.

There are three agencies chartered by the Federal Government to provide first aid training: The Boy Scouts of America, the American Red Cross and the National Ski Patrol. All three organizations provide training that is recognized by all states as for protection under state Good Samaritan acts recognized by all states and the federal government as first aid training providers.

Litigation that claims the first aid care is rare when brought against outfitters and guides. Litigation against search and rescue groups and volunteers is growing. In both cases the claim that the first aid care was negligent was combined with other claims. Both groups need to be protected in any additional studies done to determine what training is appropriate or necessary.

I agree with Dr. Forgey’s editorial that the issue needs to be reexamined. But instead of a chart of what is being doing, I would strongly urge any study to look at best practices for the industry with an eye to the ever changing future. Instead of listing the standard, which will then allow plaintiff’s to gauge their lawsuits and start advertising for them or the minimums which would guaranty a loss by a defendant the study should look at what is being done and what might work.

More importantly as the article relates too in the beginning and Dr. Forgey mentions is a study of what really occurs and that can be resolved with basic first aid. What can first aid supplies be reasonable carried by a group, what can be used with the knowledge that can be retained by the group and what is actually effective in the outdoors when miles or hours from EMS. The desire to stop litigation is leading groups to wildly divergent and in many cases ridiculous results. One Texas University outdoor program was told to carry AED’s on their wilderness backpacking trips. Another example is the use of helmets in whitewater rafting; an industry that prior to the use of helmets never had a reported head injury. Colorado, West Virginia and California have not received a report of a head injury that a helmet would protect in a whitewater rafting. This would assist outfitters and guides as well as state and federal land management agencies in determining what is really possible and therefore needed. It might also reduce the desire to teach and or carry prescription drugs because of the effectiveness at a distance from EMS and consequently take pressure off physicians to prescribe these drugs in violation of the law or their medmal insurance carrier.

What we need is realistic analysis and study of what is possible and plausible in a wilderness setting. What will save a life and what won’t, what should be done and what is a waste of time. That study should be labeled in such a way as to not create the basis for injured participants to start litigation.

Sincerely,

James H. Moss

Cc    Wm Forgey, MD


Why Rental Operations should use a release

Ten Reasons Why Rental Operations should use a release

  1. It stops lawsuits when you have provided too much information that has gotten the customer in trouble

  2. It allows you to recover damages if the customer does not return the product or damages the product

  3. It tracks who is renting your product

  4. It helps keep the relationship strong between you and the land manager where your product is being used

  5. It keeps you from falling in love with a defense attorney.

  6. It keeps your insurance premiums from going through the roof.

  7. It allows you to keep control of your business in turbulent times.

  8. It educates your customers in how your product works and what they should and should not do.

  9. A release informs your customers of the risks of using the product improperly.

  10. It makes sure you get paid and your product comes back.


Ten Reasons Why Retailers should use a release

Why retailers should use a release

  1. You can track who is coming to your store.

  2. You will learn how many people demoed a product and whether the event was a success

  3. You will get the name, address, phone and email of everyone who demoed a product so you can start a contact list

  4. You can learn if the customer liked the product, even if they don’t buy the product that day

  5. You can stop yourself from getting sued.

  6. You can educate your customers to some of the risks of the sport

  7. You can educate the customers to the risks of the new product

  8. You can rent anything to customers if you have the right release

  9. You can keep manufactures from sharing the defendant’s table with you in a lawsuit.

  10. You can help customers move into bigger and/or better products because you can run a demo program for every product in your store.


Why Manufactures should use a release

Ten Reasons why manufactures of recreation products should be using a release!

  1. It informs customers of possible hazards of a new product they have never tried before.

  2. It helps new customers to the sport understand the risks of the sport and your equipment.

  3. It creates a relationship between you and your retailers that is hard to break by a plaintiff’s lawyer.

  4. A release protects your reps from lawsuits from retailers or customers.

  5. A release provides you with the name, address, email and contact info of everyone who demo’s your products if your release asks for the information.

  6. You can use the release to track what someone is demoing and what they thought about the product and the sport.

  7. It will help you win a lawsuit if the customer uses your product incorrectly.

  8. It will help you win a lawsuit if the customer is new to the sport and does not understand the intricate issues of the sport and your product.

  9. It will help you win a lawsuit if your product breaks and injures the customer

  10. It will keep you from spending months with a defense attorney.


Ten Reasons Why Outfitters should use a release

Why Outfitters should use a release

  1. Customers may have no idea what you really do, a release helps explain that.

  2. A release will inform customers of the risk, and you have proof of it

  3. A release allows you to track who is going on the trip

  4. A release allows you to gather a customer’s name, address, phone and email info and gives you permission to use it.

  5. Releases let your customers know that you are not a different version of Disneyland®

  6. Releases educate your customers and educated customers are happy customers

  7. Releases keep you from getting to know an attorney your insurance company hired to defend you.

  8. Releases will help keep your insurance costs down

  9. Releases will keep you at work rather than in a deposition.

  10. A well written release makes sure that if there is a problem it is in your backyard not some foreign place where the jury has no idea what you do.


Why Colleges and University Degree Programs should use a release

Ten Reasons Why Colleges and University Degree Programs should use a release

  1. Students sue if they are over 18 and injured in a degree or non-degree program

  2. Parents sue if their child is hurt in a program at school. Parents send their kids to be protected like they were at home.

  3. Student health insurance companies sue to recover their costs under the subrogation clause in the policy

  4. Students need to understand the risks of the sport; a release helps drive that issue home.

  5. A release covers something you might have forgotten

  6. A release helps keep your job if a student is injured

  7. A release keeps “Risk Management” and “University Counsel” out of your hair.

  8. A release allows you to expand your program by expanding the territory, the activities and/or the risk

  9. A risk prevents you from taking a non-credit three year class called lawsuit defense

  10. A release keeps me off your campus except to train rather than investigate and defend

  11. A release keeps you from learning how nasty depositions really are.

  12. Having students fill out a release and answering questions about the release is another class you don’t have to prepare a lesson plan for.


Money Magazine has a great article “5 Things to Never Say to Your Insurers”

Money Magazine November 2009 has an article 5 Things to Never Say to Your Insurers on page 32. The 5 things to not say are:

  • I think
  • I got whiplash
  • It’s an experimental treatment
  • My basement flooded
  • Just send me a check

I think is an opinion and opinions get everyone in trouble. Only give any law enforcement officer or insurance investigator facts not opinions. Even if asked be hesitant about what you think, it raises warning flats in everyone’s mind and may lead the investigator down the wrong trail.

I got whiplash is key to start a fraud investigation. If you are hurt, just refer the investigator or claims adjuster to your health care provider. Unless you are a physician and can provide the investigator with the correct medical terminology, don’t. If your neck hurts, say your neck hurts or whatever hurts or does not work. But leave the medical diagnose to your physician.

It’s an experimental treatment translates into insurance speak as “then we are going to experiment on not paying you.” Insurance companies are not required to pay for experiments, even if you believe it may keep you alive. The key term is, is the treatment medical necessary. Again experiments are not medically necessary.

My basement flooded talks about an accident that is not covered. Rain is covered, once water hits the ground, it is called surface water and no insurance policy issued by an insurance company covers it. You must buy a flood insurance policy from the federal government if you want to have coverage for flooding. If the flood was caused by a burst pipe, which is covered tell them what happened, not the results in this case.

Just send me a check. Insurance is used to put the policy holder back in the position where they were before the incident. If you want to use the money for something else, which in some cases may be illegal or a breach of the policy, you can’t tell the insurance company. They want the money to go to fix the problem.

Insurance companies may be owned by shareholders or owned by the policyholders, either way they are not supposed to pay fake, fraudulent, experimental claims or pay for things other than what is specifically listed under the policy.


Who should use a Release? Its November Review your Release for Free Month

Because its November’s Review your release for free month I’m posting articles on Wednesday about Releases and why you should use them.

Anyone who offers activities to the public, where there are numerous risks outside of the control of the operator should use a release.

  • Outfitters: business who offer outdoor trips to the public. Whether a hike down a trail to look at wildlife or to the top of Mt Everest to add to your resume.

Anyone who is offering products to the public which the public may not understand or may not be able to comprehend

  • Demo’s: Whether a rep, retailer or manufacturer you want your products to be tested and tried. New products may require new skills or new ideas that your guests are not use too.
  • Rental Programs: People rent when they want to have fun, want to try, or are interested in having a good time. All of these are done by people who may not have experience with the specific product you are renting.

Anyone who may be involved in a lawsuit do to the actions of someone you can’t control should use a release

  • Retailers: a manufacture has sold you a new product. You have agreed to be the guinea pig on whether it works or sells. You should not be a guinea pig on the first lawsuit
  • Manufactures: Promises made by sales come back to haunt risk management. If you are manufacturing a product that can be sold incorrectly, you don’t need to learn about it in a summons and complaint

Anyone placing products in the stream of commerce before they are finalized

  • Testing: You have hired

Anyone who is offering products for a discount

  • Season tickets at resorts or ski areas: you need to recoup your lowered cost by decreasing your insurance and claims costs.

Anyone takes students out of their normal environment to educate them.

  • College & University programs: the student does not sue his or her parent or insurance company may. Learning may incorporate more that what you teach in the classroom, it may incorporate the courtroom.

Anyone who hires professional athletes to be a promoter of the product

  • Sponsor: You want your product seen by everyone so you pay or provide the product to people to show it off. Showing off usually means bigger, higher, faster or deeper which all can lead to litigation.

Anyone who is taking people outside of their normal environment

  • Inner city youth to the country
  • Farm kids to large east coast cities
  • Anyone taking anyone around animals

Anyone dealing with youth whose parents are not around and consider you a nice alternative to paid babysitters.

  • Parents who drop their kids off, don’t know who you are, don’t understand what you are doing, and will never understand why their child was hurt.

If you are worried about being sued and you are located in a state where releases are upheld, you are offering a recreational service or opportunities to the public you might try using a release.

November Free Review Your Release Opportunity

In an opportunity to help generate ideas and interest in this blog and the Outdoor Recreation and Fitness Law Review I am going to make everyone an offer you can’t refuse. During the month of November I am going to review your releases or acknowledgment of risk forms for free.

Stay tuned I’ll come up with the requirements and how the program is going to work, but it will be no cost to you (and hopefully no major headaches for me!)

Pass this on, repost for your friends on Facebook and Re-tweet or just email it to your friends.


Judge refuses to dismiss lawsuit against Dartmouth College over a fatality of a student at the college’s ski hill.

Get a Good Attorney to Write your Release or Don’t Waste the Paper!

The suit was filed in Federal District Court in new hampshire. The college filed a motion for summary judgment based on the equipment rental liability release signed by the deceased. The judge ruled the release did not “specifically identify Dartmouth or inform a renter that he or she is relieving Dartmouth of liability.”

Another situation where your release needs to be written properly by an attorney familiar with your activity and your case law or state law.

See Judge Denies Dartmouth Request In Ski Death Case


Dex works

Dexamathasone or Dex as it is commonly known has been shown to improve exercise capacity at high altitude. Dex has been shown to prevent HAPE (high altitude pulmonary edema) and AMS (acute mountain sickness). Now it has been shown to improve oxygen uptake and decreased the anaerobic threshold.

The study was reported in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

See Dex Improves High Altitude Exercise Capacity and Taking Dex Can Improve High Altitude Exercise Capacity In Certain Climbers, Study Finds.


Criminal Trial Starts this week for MD who pulls in front of cyclists and slams on his brakes.

VeloNews is reporting that a criminal trial is starting this week in Los Angeles Superior Court. Dr. Christopher T. Thompson is on trial for multiple felony charges. Dr. Thompson owns a medical records company Touch Medix.

A year ago Dr. Thompson got mad at two cyclists riding abreast on a dead end road. The two were behind a larger group of cyclists. They had stopped to assist an injured cyclist. Dr. Thompson exchanged words with the cyclists about riding two abreast and then pulled in front of the cyclists and slammed on his breaks.

One cyclist hit the back of the car and the other went through the rear window.

Two witnesses at the trail are two other cyclists who had a similar confrontation with an identical car with an identical license plate three months earlier. Both of those cyclists were able to miss the car when it braked.

See California road-rage case heads for court


The Japanese do not sue…..but you can go to jail for having a client die

An article Authorities raid tour agent in mountain deaths speaks to the Japanese police raided a tour operator over the death of eight senior citizens during a mountain climbing tour. The tour participants who were in their 60’s died of apparent hypothermia in cold wet weather.

As I have repeatedly argued the laws of the US are very different than the laws of other nations. In the US we have a low threshold to sue and a high threshold to go to jail. In most other countries the exact opposite is true, it is difficult to sue but easy to go to jail.

For other blogs about this issue see: Well in New Zealand…….you go to JAIL!, Another Litigation versus Criminal example and Litigation v. Jail Time


What is in a Business Name: A Robbery if you are Black Diamond

This if funny, but at the same time scary. KSL TV is reporting in Robber apparently confused over loot at ‘Black Diamond’ company that a man attempted to rob Black Diamond Equipment Company of their precious jewels. Although many of us believe that Black Diamond skis, carabiners and other climbing and mountaineering equipment are precious and sometimes as expensive (J) I don’t think there is a big black market for those stolen jewels that a stupid thief could find.

If you see a Polynesian man in his 20s or 30s about 6 feet 3 inches tall with a medium build and a shaved head with a full-sleeve tattoo on his right arm wearing a large, distinctive square-faced watch on his left wrist driving a white 1990s Ford Escape-type SUV and selling climbing equipment it might be stolen.

Stupid crook!


The legal relationship created between manufactures and US consumers

An Overview of the legal relationship created between manufactures and US consumers.

This is a quick memo to simply outline the legal issues encountered by foreign corporations selling in the US Market. This memo will touch on the following issues:

Agency

An agent legally represents the manufacture. From a legal standpoint the agent stands in the shoes of the manufacture. An agent speaks and acts for the principal, the manufacture. As such the manufacture is liable for anything the agent says or does while representing the manufacture until the agency is terminated and that termination is communicated to interested third party consumers.

An agency relationship exists when a principal (in this case the manufacture or distributor) creates a legal relationship with a third party for the third party to represent the principal. In this case the third party is a retailer of products or an independent contractor sales representative. This relationship can be by contract (oral or written) or by actions on the part of either party (I’ll pay you if you do that).

An agency can be created without a legal relationship. Agency by Estoppel is created when third parties or consumers believe that one party has vested rights or an agency in another based on the actions of the principal. If a sales rep says he works for a manufacture and the manufacture does nothing to terminate the relationship or refine the relationship in the minds of the consumer or the shop then the agency does in fact exist. The parameters of the relationship are as defined by the consumer as reasonably interpreted from the actions of the agent. Failure to stop or disclaim the agency confirms the agency.

This places a tremendous burden on manufactures to create a relationship with agents that is within the parameters and/or restrictions the manufacture wants and then to insist the agent work within those parameters. However, if the manufacture does nothing to enforce the parameters or knows the agent is working outside of the parameters the manufacture will be held liable for the acts of the agent.

A good contract outlining the relationship is necessary for most independent contractor’s representative and required by seventeen (17) states.

Agency by law is another type of agency that is created. These are actions that the courts have interpreted over time to be agency relationships. A specific example in this case is again the manufacture and the distributor or the manufacture and the rep. Courts have determined that for the distributor or rep to do their jobs there is an agency relationship for the agent to act for the manufacture. Agency by law then is interpreted to mean the agent has the basic responsibility to act on behalf of the manufacture.

This places a burden on manufactures to do two things. (1) Hire agents who will understand and respect the agency relationship as defined by the manufacture. That then requires a well written contract that gives the agent freedom to do their job and at the same time reserves the rights and powers that the manufacture wishes to retain. (2) To act quickly when the manufacture sees someone acting outside of the defined relationship or a third party who is acting like an agent.

These place tremendous burdens on the manufacture. However the burdens were created to prevent the consumer, who has little or no way of checking on the relationship from getting ripped off.

Specifically a sales rep is the same as a bike shop, both are selling for the manufacture and the public can rely on both in the same way.

Warranties

A warranty is created every time there is a sale. Most warranties in the US are defined in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and in a few cases state and federal laws. Specific Federal laws may affect the sale of certain items such as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act which covers warranties on automobiles.

In every sale the UCC states that there is a Warranty of Fitness and a Warranty for a Particular Purpose (UCC – ARTICLE 2 -§2-314 & 315).

§ 2-314. Implied Warranty: Merchantability; Usage of Trade.

(1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.

(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as

(a) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and

(b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and

(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and

(d) run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and

(e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require; and

(f) conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

§ 2-315. Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose.

Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

As innocent as these warranties appear, they are the basis for product liability lawsuits and can be used to void more limiting warranties. However both of these warranties can be voided.

An example of the problem would be a camming device. The salesman states the camming device will work “no matter what.” The user drags the device through the mud so it is just caked and won’t work properly. The consumer uses the device, it fails because of the mud and the consumer is injured. The consumer could sue for their injuries under a breach of warranty theory because the device did not live up to the reason why it was purchased. This is a breach of the fitness for a particular purpose warranty.

Another example of the problem would be selling a bicycle. The salesman states the bicycle will be easy to ride. The new owner has never used a derailleur shifted gears on a bicycle and constantly has trouble shifting the gears. During one attempt to change gears the consumer hits a sewer grate suffering serious injuries. The consumer could sue for their injuries under a breach of warranty theory because the device did not live up to the reason why it was purchased. This is a breach of the fitness for a particular purpose warranty.

There is an out in the law that allows a manufacture to argue that the statements were salesman’s “puffing.” That means the statements that a salesman makes to sell a product that may be over the top. However because the warranty was not properly disclaimed the salesman’s puffing is not a valid defense. This may be in addition to any claim for basic product liability issues.

State Consumer Protection Laws

Each state has enacted a serious of Consumer Protection Laws. These laws are designed to “level the playing field” between consumers and large manufactures. Although the specifics may vary for each state in general the laws lower the threshold needed to prove a case against the manufacture and increase the damages for the consumer. In some cases damages are trebled, with interest costs and attorney fees being added to the damages.

Another disadvantage for manufactures is the manufacture can be forced to defend the action in the consumer’s state if products are sold in that state.

Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act, C.R.S. §§ 6-1-105 et seq has the following sections that would be of interest.

(1) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of such person’s business, vocation, or occupation, such person:

(d) Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services;

(r) Advertises or otherwise represents that goods or services are guaranteed without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the nature and extent of the guarantee, any material conditions or limitations in the guarantee which are imposed by the guarantor, the manner in which the guarantor will perform, and the identity of such guarantor. Any representation that goods or services are “guaranteed for life” or have a “lifetime guarantee” shall contain, in addition to the other requirements of this paragraph (r), a conspicuous disclosure of the meaning of “life” or “lifetime” as used in such representation (whether that of the purchaser, the goods or services, or otherwise). Guarantees shall not be used which under normal conditions could not be practically fulfilled or which are for such a period of time or are otherwise of such a nature as to have the capacity and tendency of misleading purchasers or prospective purchasers into believing that the goods or services so guaranteed have a greater degree of serviceability, durability, or performance capability in actual use than is true in fact. The provisions of this paragraph (r) apply not only to guarantees but also to warranties, to disclaimer of warranties, to purported guarantees and warranties, and to any promise or representation in the nature of a guarantee or warranty; however, such provisions do not apply to any reference to a guarantee in a slogan or advertisement so long as there is no guarantee or warranty of specific merchandise or other property.

(3) The deceptive trade practices listed in this section are in addition to and do not limit the types of unfair trade practices actionable at common law or under other statutes of this state.

Colorado’s statute allows the judge to award treble damages, interest and attorney fees if the consumer is successful in the suit. C.R.S. 6-1-113. §§ Damages

Here again the warranties come into play. If the consumer can prove the warranties are not disclaimed and the claim falls within the deceptive trade practices act or a common claim for deceptive trade practices, the damages for the warranty claim are increased.

European Union certifications & the US

Many manufactures from Europe or Asia believe that meeting standards for manufacturing products in Europe is all that is needed to sell in the US. That is correct. However those standards provide no defense in a US Court against product liability claims.

Product liability lawsuits are lawsuits against the manufacture and all entities in the chain of the sale. A product liability action can be brought against the bicycle shop, the distributor and the manufacture of a product. There are three basic product liability claims.

  • Defective manufacture
  • Defective Design
  • Failure to warn

Defective manufacture claims are usually brought when only one product fails because there was a flaw in the manufacturing process for that product. The flaw caused an injury to the consumer using the product.

Defective design is usually the claim made when all of a type of product fails causing injury. A defective design claim can be brought at any time during the useful life of a product. This claim is brought when all of the products of a design fail for the same reason. The design flaw can either be based on the product breaking causing injury or the design preventing the product from working as advertised or as used by consumers.

The most difficult claim to defend is a failure to warn. This claim has two parts. Failure to warn at the time of the purchase and failure to warn of new issues the manufacture learns about. Failure to warn claims are the basics for information and warning labels that are not written in a manner to adequately inform the consumer of the risks of using the product.

Failure to warn claims that arise after time are usually a result of several Defective manufacture claims. Once a manufacture knows of problems in the way a product is being used OR that a product is being used incorrectly, the manufacture MUST warn all users of the problem. This type of claim in practice is similar to a product recall. However a product recall is done before an injury occurs. A failure to warn claim is the lawsuit brought after a recall.

The running of a warranty period does not end product liability claims.

Jurisdiction and Venue

Foreign manufacture believe that by setting up a US distributor, any lawsuit can only be brought against the US distributor and not the parent company in Europe. That is not true. US law allows a lawsuit against the end manufacture, wherever that manufacture is located if the manufacture entered the product in the stream of commerce in the state where the injury occurred or where the consumer lives. Proof of entering into the stream of commerce is a combination of factors: employees or agents living or working in the state; advertising in the state; contracting with retailers to sell the product in the state; advertising at events in the state are a few examples used to prove the manufacture entered the stream of commerce in a particular state.

In some cases, a manufacture can limit suits to just a few states with proper venue and jurisdiction clauses in their information to the consumer; however this is not always successful and will not work in all states. Either way, a foreign manufacture will be brought into the US to defend a product liability claim.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com

© 2010 James H. Moss

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #Agency, #Warranty, #Disclaimers, #StateConsumerProtectionLaws, #EuropeanUnioncertifications, #Jurisdiction, #Venue, #ImpliedWarranty, #Merchantability, #ImpliedWarranty, #WarrantyofFitnessforParticularPurpose, #independentcontractor, #rep, #representative, #Principal,

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Windows Live Tags:
consumers,Agency,Disclaimers,Consumer protection,European Union,Jurisdiction,Venue,agent,distributor,retailer,contractor,sale,Uniform Commercial Code,items,Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,ARTICLE,Usage,Trade,seller,buyer,user,theory,Another,bicycle,owner,gears,sewer,defense,addition,Although,specifics,threshold,attorney,fees,disadvantage,action,Colorado,person,vocation,occupation,origin,connection,services,nature,extent,limitations,guarantor,manner,representation,life,lifetime,requirements,paragraph,disclosure,purchaser,period,tendency,degree,performance,disclaimer,reference,slogan,advertisement,statute,Damages,Here,Many,Europe,Asia,Court,Defective,Design,flaw,injury,basics,result,Once,problems,lawsuit,Foreign,parent,commerce,Proof,combination,employees,events,Either,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Recreaton,Gmail,James,Keywords,adventure,Principal,corporations,sales,parameters,agents,automobiles,purposes,variations,units,affirmations,lawsuits,injuries,statements,representations,designations,purchasers,statutes,retailers,certifications,merchantable
WordPress Tags:
consumers,Agency,Disclaimers,Consumer protection,European Union,Jurisdiction,Venue,agent,distributor,retailer,contractor,sale,Uniform Commercial Code,items,Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,ARTICLE,Usage,Trade,seller,buyer,user,theory,Another,bicycle,owner,gears,sewer,defense,addition,Although,specifics,threshold,attorney,fees,disadvantage,action,Colorado,person,vocation,occupation,origin,connection,services,nature,extent,limitations,guarantor,manner,representation,life,lifetime,requirements,paragraph,disclosure,purchaser,period,tendency,degree,performance,disclaimer,reference,slogan,advertisement,statute,Damages,Here,Many,Europe,Asia,Court,Defective,Design,flaw,injury,basics,result,Once,problems,lawsuit,Foreign,parent,commerce,Proof,combination,employees,events,Either,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Recreaton,Gmail,James,Keywords,adventure,Principal,corporations,sales,parameters,agents,automobiles,purposes,variations,units,affirmations,lawsuits,injuries,statements,representations,designations,purchasers,statutes,retailers,certifications,merchantable
Blogger Labels:
consumers,Agency,Disclaimers,Consumer protection,European Union,Jurisdiction,Venue,agent,distributor,retailer,contractor,sale,Uniform Commercial Code,items,Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,ARTICLE,Usage,Trade,seller,buyer,user,theory,Another,bicycle,owner,gears,sewer,defense,addition,Although,specifics,threshold,attorney,fees,disadvantage,action,Colorado,person,vocation,occupation,origin,connection,services,nature,extent,limitations,guarantor,manner,representation,life,lifetime,requirements,paragraph,disclosure,purchaser,period,tendency,degree,performance,disclaimer,reference,slogan,advertisement,statute,Damages,Here,Many,Europe,Asia,Court,Defective,Design,flaw,injury,basics,result,Once,problems,lawsuit,Foreign,parent,commerce,Proof,combination,employees,events,Either,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Recreaton,Gmail,James,Keywords,adventure,Principal,corporations,sales,parameters,agents,automobiles,purposes,variations,units,affirmations,lawsuits,injuries,statements,representations,designations,purchasers,statutes,retailers,certifications,merchantable

Enhanced by Zemanta

Death from fall from inflatable climbing wall results in Criminal Charges

I’m not sure what prompts prosecutors to charge people for what appear to be accident deaths of patrons. In this case a 24 year old woman was attending a festival, climbed on an inflatable climbing wall and fell off. She hit her head when she fell on the platform.

The company was charged with reckless and wanton negligence. The charges came after 2 years and a change in district attorneys. The family is suing the climbing wall operator with a trial started September 2, 2009.

I have lots of issues with all of this.

Reckless and wanton negligence is generally not a criminal act. Negligence is a breach of a duty to someone. A crime requires scienter, a criminal intent to do the crime to act in a criminal way. Negligence is not criminal by its definition. Granted there are crimes that do not require proof of a criminal intent, parking tickets being the best example.

Second, the issues reported, have their own criminal penalties if they occurred. The prosecutor states the company “failed to follow safety regulations. … had not been inspected as required, was poorly placed and lacked proper permits and that the operator was not properly trained or certified.” A violation of safety regulations either federal, OSHA, or state has specific penalties and in most cases administrative law procedures. You are cited and pay a fine. Failing to be inspected and not having the proper permits is similar, you are fined.

But I doubt there are safety regulations that would affect this situation. OSHA only covers employees and the state or county would have to enact regulations to cover inflatable climbing walls and I’ve not see any. Consequently this statement seems…incorrect?

However here again the prosecutor takes off in a different direction with proper placement and lack of training or certification. Proper placement from a criminal perspective occurs when you are dealing with a dangerous instrumentality. Dynamite, wild animals or guns are the examples given in legal textbooks. You are dealing with something that everyone knows will kill and has been identified as such by the community and therefore you have a requirement to handle with care or you can face criminal liability. A toy is not a dangerous instrumentality. It is not designed or known to kill if used incorrectly every time it is used.

Manslaughter is generally “homicide without malice aforethought.” Less than murder because the willful element is not present. Manslaughter lacks the intent to kill while manslaughter is an act that will result in death no matter what. A better way to look at the difference is murder you intend to kill someone, manslaughter you act in a way that someone was bound to die. Those are not the strict legal definitions but a general way of looking at the differences.

Here again the difference between a toy that someone dies using and a gun or dynamite is an easy way to see the difference. Using the Infinite Monkey’s theory (given an infinite amount of time an infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of keyboards can type the works of Shakespeare), anything can kill. A gun on the other hand can kill every time.

“When a corporation offers entertainment or rides that have some risk for patrons, the company must ensure that it has taken all necessary steps to ensure the safety of those who participate,” Sutter said. “In this case, that clearly was not done.”

However that is why we have this entire separate legal system in the US. As I’ve commented on several times in the past, we have a civil system that controls society as well as a criminal system. If you act improperly the civil system is put into place; you are sued. If you act improperly with criminal intent, the criminal system is used. In other countries the government controls more of society. It does not require the high level of intent before the government steps in and civil suits are rare and difficult.

“…properly trained or certified” is another statement solely used to inflame the possible jury pool. The training would be determined by the manufacture of the inflatable wall and the certification does not exist. If you need to be certified, stand on one foot, pat your head and jump around in a circle three times saying Jim Moss is the greatest and you are certified. If you send me $20.00 I’ll send you proof of the certification. For $25 I’ll let you tell me what you have been certified to do and for $30 I’ll let you recertify people in the program.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the actions of the company are blameless. Nor am I trying in any way to discount the pain and grief this family feels. However the blurring of the lines between civil and criminal is an issue that is growing in the US.

This brings up a lot of unanswered questions. What is the relationship between the prosecutor and the family’s attorney? Criminal charges three weeks before a civil trial starts, is extremely suspect. Why when one prosecutor did not charge has the second prosecutor decided to charge the family? Finally is the prosecutor running for re-election of suffering a public relations issue? I can’t believe there is anything but a PR campaign here.

The article is: Danvers firm faces criminal charge


Two people charged with crime in fatal rafting accident.


The North Central Illinois News Tribune is reporting that two people were charged with operating a boat under the influence of alcohol. They were on the Vermilion River when their raft went over a low head dam. A third passenger in boat drowned.

They part of a group of seven people in two rafts. The first raft made it down a boat shoot on the right hand side.

The charges are a Class A Misdemeanor offense with a penalty of a $2500 fine or up to one year in jail.

See Two charged in wake of fatal rafting accident and Ex-St. Charles woman charged in fatal rafting accident.


Give me a break! Teen charged $25K for a rescue he did not need

A Facebook page started to round up money, but we would be better off paying an attorney to fight it for him

Here is the story. A 17 year old Eagle Scout went hiking in the White Mountains of new hampshire last April. He sprained an ankle, tried a different route out, it failed and he spent 3 days backtracking. In the mean time a Search and Rescue (SAR) was called. Volunteers and state employees were called to search for the youth. He was found, hiking, OK and not needing a rescue. When found by SAR he was described as on his way home.

Three months later the state of new hampshire sent him a bill for his non-rescue for $25,000. They are saying that he was negligent.

Fish and Game Maj. Tim Acerno said the decision to fine Mason came from what was deemed as the teen’s negligence for continuing a hike with an injury — a sprained ankle — and veering off a trial to what Mason recalled was a shortcut. Only the shortcut was cut short by a stream swollen from melting snow and snow still on the ground in April. See Teen walloped with NH rescue fine

In new hampshire it is negligent to hike with a sprained ankle! Or is it negligent to try and take a shortcut when you sprain an ankle.

The state is forcing people to decide whether going outdoors is worth it. Is the value of my life without the outdoors worth risking everything I have gained indoors?

But as cynical as I sound, if you are a professional or volunteer, if you are part of a SAR unit and you work in the US this can have a disastrous effect on your business or volunteer work.

If the state can prove someone is negligent for hiking on a sprained ankle when he tried to take a shortcut, how easy will it be to use that case law and prove you were negligent as a guide for not getting your client back when you predicted. For not getting your client home 100% safe.

What about SAR missions. If the state can prove negligence in this case, it will be easy to prove negligence for failing to find or failing to adequately rescue.

This could have serious domino effect.

Here is the new hampshire statute

206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery.

I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department’s expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.

II. f any person fails to make payment under paragraph I, the executive director of the fish and game department may:

(a) Order any license, permit, or tag issued by the fish and game department to be suspended or revoked, after due hearing.

(b) Notify the commissioner of the department of health and human services of such nonpayment. The nonpayment shall constitute cause for revocation of any license or certification issued by the commissioner pursuant to RSA 126-A:20 and RSA 151:7.

(c) Notify the director of motor vehicles of such nonpayment and request suspension of the person’s driver’s license pursuant to RSA 263:56.

Emphasizes Added

No jury, no court no judicial authority makes the determination as to whether or not there was real negligence. Under most state laws, no “department” can determine if someone is negligent. That is left solely within the power of the trier of fact, a jury usually.

Duh Joe, what’s the budge look like this week? Really a little short, well let’s bill somebody. Let’s see I helped a little old lady across the street, she looked lost to me, I think she’s good for $50 K!

I hear politician’s everyday say at what point do US citizens take responsibility for their own actions. Well here is the perfect case and the state says you can’t be responsible. A well trained individual got in trouble and got himself out of trouble. Now the state wants money from him?

Another article quotes the state as saying

Scott Mason had been praised for utilizing his Eagle Scout skills — sleeping in the crevice of a boulder and jump-starting fires with hand sanitizer gel. But authorities say he wasn’t prepared for the conditions he encountered and shouldn’t have set out on such an ambitious hike.

“Yes, he’d been out there in July when you could step across the brooks. And people have been out there in winter in hard-packed snow. But with these spring conditions, it was soft snow, it was deep snow,” said Fish and Game Maj. Tim Acerno.

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.

Emphasizes Added

See: Teen fined $25,000 for cost of NH mountain rescue.

So now hiking is OK, but only when it is summertime. It was snowing in the Colorado mountains last week, should we have closed the mountains? The makers of snowshoes, avalanche beacons, back country ski gear and cold weather gear are going to be disappointed when they find out you can’t use their gear outdoors anymore.

A reasonable person would have lay down and died, or spent hours watching a cell phone battery die. This kid got himself out of the jam and was walking home!

The young man has until August 9th to pay the bill or to go to supposedly court to contest the fine. I don’t see anywhere in the statute where he has an option of going to court. But he should and we should help. For more information on helping Scott Mason please read to the end.

Negligent Hiking?

I am stumped on how the state can create a law about negligent hiking. 25 years practicing law, 20 years specializing in outdoor recreation and I’ve never heard of or even thought of the idea of negligent hiking, negligent self rescue. More importantly what constitutes negligence when going for a hike? Negligence is composed of four steps all of which must be met. There must be a:

  • duty,
  • a breach of that duty,
  • an injury, and
  • damages proximately caused by the breach of the duty.

What is the basic duty that was breached? Does a hiker owe the state a duty not to get hurt or lost? (Consequently doesn’t the state owe the hiker a risk free trail and signs so the hiker does not get hurt or lost? like in any downtown city in the US?). Where is the duty owed and to whom? Citizens only owe the state a duty if the state by law has said there is a duty. The best example is to pay taxes. Not to walk the way the state wants you to walk or to behave in the woods the way the state wants you to behave.

If we don’t get involved to fight this law several major things are going to happen.

SARs are going to get messier. Instead of calling when things are bad, people, in fear of a $25K or higher bill will wait till it is too late. A fine is not going to stop people from going hiking or doing stupid things. If that was the case, our jails would be empty and our taxes would be higher. (No speeding tickets a city has no income.) new hampshire is going to fine everyone they believe will give them some money.

The capstone for this is the family of the rescued young man sent $1000.00 to the search and rescue group for helping to find Scott.

If you would like to contribute to the Rescue Scott Mason Fund send a check to:

Scott Mason Contribution Fund
Mutual Bank
336 Plymouth Street
Halifax, MA 02338

What else can you do?

  1. Avoid New Hampshire. Sure states need money now, but they should not put the lion’s share on the back of those of us who enjoy the outdoors. More so the state should not place people in a position where they measure the value of their life in the outdoors against their life without the outdoors. If we stay away from New Hampshire because of these risks, the state may catch on.
  2. Contact the governor of new hampshire and let him know what you think and that charging a young man for not being rescued is ridiculous

    Office of the Governor
    State House
    25 Capitol Street
    Concord, NH 03301

    (603)271-2121
    (603)271-7680 (fax)

Click here to access the governor’s email account.

Tell the governor to cancel the rescue fee and to change the law or you will boycott the state.

  1. Send money, but encourage the family to use the money to fight the case. I believe it will be impossible for a jury to decide that Scott Mason was negligent.
  2. Contact the new hampshire fish and wildlife division and let them know what you think. The website to contact them is http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Inside_FandG/contact_fish_and_game.htm&ei=XyF2SsDuKonatgO1ueHGCA&sa=X&oi=smap&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=6&usg=AFQjCNGpxWsnyGqilZ3FFnUWqKRxKFv3tg. However I’ve never got it to open, it keeps crashing. J Maybe they are getting a lot of traffic over this?

For more discussions about charging for Search & Rescue see Search & Rescue and charging for it and Vermont getting serious about charging for Search and Rescue. For a great post on the right to do we want to do in the wilderness see Jon Heshka and the Right of the Individual to Die Doing What We Love.

To see a facebook Page about the issue see: Rescue Scott Mason AGAIN.


If you go to Burning Man and get burned, you assume the risk.

A man who got burned at Burning Man cannot sue for failing to know the fire was hot. Burning Man is an annual event in the Nevada desert that culminates in burning a 60′ wooden edifice. It started on a beach in California after a bad divorce.

I’ve always wanted to go. It is a week of naked people running around drunk or in costumes drunk. My kind of place!

Four years ago the plaintiff went to burning man and attempted to throw a picture of a deceased friend on the fire and was burnt in the process. It was his third trip to Burning Man. Actually he tripped and fell into the fire after throwing the picture into the fire.

He sued Burning Man for his injuries and the appellate court upheld a lower court opinion and said he assumed the risk. The plaintiff’s claim was based on the allegation that “negligently allowing people to approach the fire without safe pathways.”

See Burning Man survives suit by burned man