4 ms·

For me the real key here is this: >In her verdict, United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles disagreed. Powers, she wrote, “was reckless and negligent i

For me the real key here is this: >In her verdict, United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles disagreed. Powers, she wrote, “was reckless and negligent in his preparation for a hike of this magnitude from the outset.” He hadn’t packed a GPS device, paper map, or compass, instead relying on a cell phone mapping app that was useless without service. He had failed to bring a headlamp or flashlight, instead relying on his phone’s built-in light. He went into the wilderness alone without even the most BASIC of supplies. I'm no serious outdoorsman, but I'd never consider doing what he did. That was grossly negligent. He created a problem for himself, and then created a massive problem for everyone else trying to get out of it.

fatnoah 4y ago
This is what did it for me as well. He was on the wrong trail and relying on a cell phone for maps and GPS is outright foolishness.
giantg2 4y ago
What does the flashlight or headlamp have to do with the circumstances of this case? What about the first aid kit they mentioned? I don't see those changing anything in this case. "He went into the wilderness alone without even the most BASIC of supplies." You mention wilderness. Was the trail he intended to hike also in the wilderness area? This could have an impact on what one brings with them. For example, he might have had cell coverage at the trail he intended to hike. And he did infact bring a lot of equipment, such as camping equipment even though he didn't plan to stay overnight. It's not like he set out without anything. The point here is that any little thing can have people screaming that you were negligent. The bar is that a reasonable person should have known better. Maybe that's true. If it is, then almost anyone can be found negligent when they need to be rescued. That's my point. One thing to point out on this is they mention many hikers underpack their water. If you survey how many hikers of beginner day trip trails pack first aid, proper flashlights, etc I would guess you'd find that many, if not most, don't. Perhaps a reasonable person wouldn't have known to plan for this. "That was grossly negligent. He created a problem for himself, and then created a massive problem for everyone else trying to get out of it." I'd say he was reckless in the way he set the fire. I'm not convinced he was negligent in going hiking since he had many pieces of equipment and the recommended amount of water for the expected time (a day hike).
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  Dude went hiking, alone, in the wilderness, without basic supplies -- e.g., a compass, a map, a proper GPS, or even a flashlight. If that doesn't sound negligent to you, well, you're not reading well.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Was the trail he intended to hike a wilderness trail as well? This can influence what one brings. I'm not bringing a flashlight on a day hike just to carry extra weight if I have one on my phone. A map is good, but shouldn't really be necessary on a well established beginner trail for a day hike. He turned around after he was lost. The real issue is one mistake of choosing the wrong trail due to a name mix up leading to everything else, and then being reckless about the fire. It's easy to use hindsight to say someone was negligent because you would have packed X and they didn't. Yet there are many other people that might call you negligent because you didn't pack everything on their list.
    - apple4ever 4y ago
      Exactly. The question is what would a reasonable person did, and as mentioned in the article, many reasonable people fail to take enough water. He made mistakes and it almost cost his life. But he took steps to save his life too. That got out of hand too. But that is the nature of rescues - if everyone did the right thing from the start, we wouldn't need rescues! Punishing him is unjust. It should be a lesson. The money doesn't matter - that's why we pay taxes, so we have someone to save us if we get into trouble.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I don't think that "everybody does it" is a reasonable excuse when the risks you knowingly or unknowingly undertake materialize. There are a lot of people who speed on highways. If you cause damage or hospitalize someone because you are speeding you are still responsible. >Punishing him is unjust. It should be a lesson. The money doesn't matter - that's why we pay taxes, so we have someone to save us if we get into trouble. The fine isn't for needing rescue or getting lost, that OK. The fine is for starting a forest fire. We dont pay taxes so that everyone can start forest fires without financial consequences.

fatnoah 4y ago

This is what did it for me as well. He was on the wrong trail and relying on a cell phone for maps and GPS is outright foolishness.

giantg2 4y ago

What does the flashlight or headlamp have to do with the circumstances of this case? What about the first aid kit they mentioned? I don't see those changing anything in this case. "He went into the wilderness alone without even the most BASIC of supplies." You mention wilderness. Was the trail he intended to hike also in the wilderness area? This could have an impact on what one brings with them. For example, he might have had cell coverage at the trail he intended to hike. And he did infact bring a lot of equipment, such as camping equipment even though he didn't plan to stay overnight. It's not like he set out without anything. The point here is that any little thing can have people screaming that you were negligent. The bar is that a reasonable person should have known better. Maybe that's true. If it is, then almost anyone can be found negligent when they need to be rescued. That's my point. One thing to point out on this is they mention many hikers underpack their water. If you survey how many hikers of beginner day trip trails pack first aid, proper flashlights, etc I would guess you'd find that many, if not most, don't. Perhaps a reasonable person wouldn't have known to plan for this. "That was grossly negligent. He created a problem for himself, and then created a massive problem for everyone else trying to get out of it." I'd say he was reckless in the way he set the fire. I'm not convinced he was negligent in going hiking since he had many pieces of equipment and the recommended amount of water for the expected time (a day hike).

ubermonkey 4y ago
Dude went hiking, alone, in the wilderness, without basic supplies -- e.g., a compass, a map, a proper GPS, or even a flashlight. If that doesn't sound negligent to you, well, you're not reading well.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Was the trail he intended to hike a wilderness trail as well? This can influence what one brings. I'm not bringing a flashlight on a day hike just to carry extra weight if I have one on my phone. A map is good, but shouldn't really be necessary on a well established beginner trail for a day hike. He turned around after he was lost. The real issue is one mistake of choosing the wrong trail due to a name mix up leading to everything else, and then being reckless about the fire. It's easy to use hindsight to say someone was negligent because you would have packed X and they didn't. Yet there are many other people that might call you negligent because you didn't pack everything on their list.
  - apple4ever 4y ago
    Exactly. The question is what would a reasonable person did, and as mentioned in the article, many reasonable people fail to take enough water. He made mistakes and it almost cost his life. But he took steps to save his life too. That got out of hand too. But that is the nature of rescues - if everyone did the right thing from the start, we wouldn't need rescues! Punishing him is unjust. It should be a lesson. The money doesn't matter - that's why we pay taxes, so we have someone to save us if we get into trouble.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I don't think that "everybody does it" is a reasonable excuse when the risks you knowingly or unknowingly undertake materialize. There are a lot of people who speed on highways. If you cause damage or hospitalize someone because you are speeding you are still responsible. >Punishing him is unjust. It should be a lesson. The money doesn't matter - that's why we pay taxes, so we have someone to save us if we get into trouble. The fine isn't for needing rescue or getting lost, that OK. The fine is for starting a forest fire. We dont pay taxes so that everyone can start forest fires without financial consequences.