d_shorb wrote:With the right lawyer, it would be proven and someone would pay.

Well, you seem to have shifted from what should and ought to be done to what you might be able to roll the dice on and get some frivolous reward.

Anecdotal cases don't do much to support what the likely outcome would be. You hear about extreme results all the time, but there are far many more lawsuits that are filed and lost, or thown out before they even begin, than you realize. Winning a case isn't as easy, or cheap, as you might think.

Ask a lawyer... get rear ended and sprain your neck. You might think you are going to be rolling in money, but that is not the most likely outcome. The median result is probably to pay your bills and one to two thousand dollars, and thats it.

You are right Sulfuric Acid. There were some injuries, I overlooked, but very minor, which is how I overlooked them. Not thousands in damages here. Apparently the boy didn't even consider a chipped vertebrae a broken bone!

"No stitches, no broken bones," said Colton.

mrchad9 wrote:

d_shorb wrote:With the right lawyer, it would be proven and someone would pay.

Well, you seem to have shifted from what should and ought to be done to what you might be able to roll the dice on and get some frivolous reward.

Anecdotal cases don't do much to support what the likely outcome would be. You hear about extreme results all the time, but there are far many more lawsuits that are filed and lost, or thown out before they even begin, than you realize. Winning a case isn't as easy, or cheap, as you might think.

Ask a lawyer... get rear ended and sprain your neck. You might think you are going to be rolling in money, but that is not the most likely outcome. The median result is probably to pay your bills and one to two thousand dollars, and thats it.

You are right Sulfuric Acid. There were some injuries, I overlooked, but very minor, which is how I overlooked them. Not thousands in damages here. Apparently the boy didn't even consider a chipped vertebrae a broken bone!

"No stitches, no broken bones," said Colton.

These cases are not anecdotal in our industry, we are all watching them carefully, and our lawyers are updating policy recommendations because of these and other cases. I talk to them regularly, you're analogies don't seem to fit with what our lawyers say.

You are wrong to think that these leaders did a fine job, and everyone should go on about there business just because the boy doesn't think much of it...

You are focusing on whether or not someone can win a case if they almost kill a kid, and the main point is that the leaders were negligent like many Boy Scout Volunteers. I don't mean to focus on the law aspect, though you are basically saying that they weren't negligent, and I would have 10 of 10 wilderness program lawyers agree that the program should get rid of those staff before they kill someone, but would additionally say an administrator needs to write up some protocols that match the rest of the industry.

You're wrong about this being a small mishap, and it appears that you think its a "Near Miss" and not an actually life threatening incident.

Time and again, it happens. I'm not saying accidents don't happen but the Boy Scouts are asking to kill kids with the amount of training they give. Boy Scouts as an oranizatin is well intensioned and so are the volunteers. It doesn't change the fact that these leader were not doing what they should have. It was a mistake.

The problem is that nearly every single year I hear of a Boy Scout mistake. Its time they stop and reevaluate. NOW. Not just in Idaho.


Why are you defending the idea that these guys did a good job?

If you took your family out and lost one of your kids, would you run the next family get away the same?

MoapaPk wrote:

d_shorb wrote:
http://www.cafety.org/privately-funded-programs/794-media-release-sheriff-recommends-death-by-homicide-at-sagewalk-or-sagewalk

This seems like a very different case; the organizers purportedly ignored the dire condition of the kid, even when he passed out in extreme heat. By contrast, the BSA leaders at Borah were immediately very concerned and started search operations when the kid was found missing.

http://adventure.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/special-report/outward-bound/christopher-ketcham-text/1

Weren't you earlier singing the praises of the Outward Bound approach?

My take: this a complex issue, and most of us weren't there. I'm guessing the boy scout group I passed on descent was this one. The leaders were doing head counts and equipment checks, and seemed attentive... at least, at 10000'. There but for the grace of God go I (not that I am religious).

Indeed Outward Bound has a better safety record.

These cases show that most trip leaders can be on their game, perhaps these guys were for the most part. Where were they when they realized the didn't have the kid? 1 mile away? More? You hint at my underlying point, which is that even those that are aware enough to keep their kids in sight and in the group, still have management issues.

Bottomline is that someone elses kid should not be checked up on 1x throughout a descent.

How do you ever expect someone to learn how to be a good mountaineer without ever almost dying? I'm alive now because of all the times I almost died.

A Few final links Describing my point:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8705262/

http://www.hcn.org/issues/87/2695

http://outsideonline.com/outside/magazine/0594/945diwo.html

http://www.standard.net/topics/boy-scouts/2010/07/19/boy-scout-suffers-fatal-fall-utah-rock-bridge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=181x366

http://dailyme.com/story/2010071500000108/boy-scouts-sued-family-heatstroke-death-.html

And here is a link to their safety Page:

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety.aspx

A qoute from their field guide:

"On the other hand, leaders who expect group members simply to obey rules and instructions—to be followers rather than thinkers and problem solvers—might discover that their groups aren't able to deal effectively with the changing nature of risk.

* Stay in good shape so you are ready for the physical demands of a trek.
* Know where you are going and what to expect.
* Adjust clothing layers to match changing conditions.
* Drink plenty of water.
* Protect yourself from exposure to the sun, biting insects, and poisonous plants.
* Take care of your gear.

A critical aspect of risk management is letting others know when you are having difficulties or are aware of a concern that might affect you or the group. Many people have a tendency to keep things to themselves. They don't want to slow down the group, or are worried about what others will think of them. But stopping for a few moments to deal with a hot spot on a heel can help avoid bringing the group to a long halt later in the day when blisters break out. Voicing concern about changing weather or questionable route decisions can bring important matters to the attention of the rest of your group.""

b. wrote:How do you ever expect someone to learn how to be a good mountaineer without ever almost dying? I'm alive now because of all the times I almost died.

good point.

d_shorb wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:...stuff...

You hint at my underlying point, which is that even those that are aware enough to keep their kids in sight and in the group, still have management issues.

I also had subtle references to global warming, reality TV, and Djibouti, and I'm surprised no one picked up on those.

MoapaPk wrote:

d_shorb wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:...stuff...

You hint at my underlying point, which is that even those that are aware enough to keep their kids in sight and in the group, still have management issues.

I also had subtle references to global warming, reality TV, and Djibouti, and I'm surprised no one picked up on those.

Like a Shakespearean actor, I was too dramatically involved in my monologue to notice various vegetables being thrown my way.

And a second climber falls off Borah in two weeks:

http://www.ktvb.com/news/Scout-leader-f ... 36329.html

"Davis' group learned taking supplies like radios and first aid kits were critical."

Glad they're learning, but how did they not already know one of the 10 essentials, along with what I consider the 11th essential? It's always good to carry a radio and let someone back home know what channel you will be on so they can tell potential rescuers in the event that a rescue is needed, not to mention the value for communicating with other members of your group.

I'm just stunned that someone would try to cut across that couloir at all. It hits about 50 degrees down below, and the runout is a cliff. Yes some Boy Scout leaders are ...

At least the kids who watched now have a sense of how quickly one gets to an uncontrollable speed on steep snow.

MoapaPk wrote:I'm just stunned that someone would try to cut across that couloir at all. It hits about 50 degrees down below, and the runout is a cliff. Yes some Boy Scout leaders are ...

At least the kids who watched now have a sense of how quickly one gets to an uncontrollable speed on steep snow.

Exactly what I was thinking after I saw the video. I am sure a pair of even the cheapest crampons would have prevented the accident (he didnt seem to have any) even when making that poor choice to traverse a 50deg. couloir.

sneakyracer wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:I'm just stunned that someone would try to cut across that couloir at all. It hits about 50 degrees down below, and the runout is a cliff. Yes some Boy Scout leaders are ...

At least the kids who watched now have a sense of how quickly one gets to an uncontrollable speed on steep snow.

Exactly what I was thinking after I saw the video. I am sure a pair of even the cheapest crampons would have prevented the accident (he didnt seem to have any) even when making that poor choice to traverse a 50deg. couloir.

I cut across that couloir. There is sometimes a nice boottrack with footsteps to place in even if it is icy, making crampons unnecessary.

If this guy had fallen going the other route then that would have been the poor choice. We didn't see it, so presumptuous for us to be evaluating it. Though I didn't see the boottrack in the video...

d_shorb wrote:These cases are not anecdotal in our industry, we are all watching them carefully, and our lawyers are updating policy recommendations because of these and other cases. I talk to them regularly, you're analogies don't seem to fit with what our lawyers say.

You are wrong to think that these leaders did a fine job, and everyone should go on about there business just because the boy doesn't think much of it...

You are focusing on whether or not someone can win a case if they almost kill a kid, and the main point is that the leaders were negligent like many Boy Scout Volunteers. I don't mean to focus on the law aspect, though you are basically saying that they weren't negligent, and I would have 10 of 10 wilderness program lawyers agree that the program should get rid of those staff before they kill someone, but would additionally say an administrator needs to write up some protocols that match the rest of the industry.

You're wrong about this being a small mishap, and it appears that you think its a "Near Miss" and not an actually life threatening incident.

Time and again, it happens. I'm not saying accidents don't happen but the Boy Scouts are asking to kill kids with the amount of training they give. Boy Scouts as an oranizatin is well intensioned and so are the volunteers. It doesn't change the fact that these leader were not doing what they should have. It was a mistake.

The problem is that nearly every single year I hear of a Boy Scout mistake. Its time they stop and reevaluate. NOW. Not just in Idaho.


Why are you defending the idea that these guys did a good job?

If you took your family out and lost one of your kids, would you run the next family get away the same?

I am not saying they did a good job, I am saying it doesn't rise to the level of negligence. Apparently the DA in the region agrees with me, as no charges have been filed.

No, you are focusing on if they can win a case or not, and I am saying they cannot. There is NOTHING here to sue over. You cannot sue for something that MIGHT have happened.

d_shorb wrote:With the right lawyer, it would be proven and someone would pay.

I'm inclined to think in terms of expectation, probability*consequence.

There was a lower boot track 10 days ago, but the snow was slippery, and the boot tracks above were slippery.

Here's what the place looked like 10 days ago (from what I've read, I'm assuming this was the accident site; the video doesn't come up for me):