Story from Idaho
http://www.ktvb.com/news/local/Nampa-te ... 86504.html

Bizarre -- what a good outcome for the kid; he was very lucky. I was there that very day, and probably passed that group as we were descending.

MoapaPk wrote:Bizarre -- what a good outcome for the kid; he was very lucky. I was there that very day, and probably passed that group as we were descending.

You was in Idaho and didnt get a hold of me?

Deltaoperator17 wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:Bizarre -- what a good outcome for the kid; he was very lucky. I was there that very day, and probably passed that group as we were descending.

You was in Idaho and didnt get a hold of me?

Didn't have much time! Got to the campsite in late afternoon, set up in a hail storm, started at 4:15AM next morning, got down and immediately drove to the east Uintas.

This adds some info, such as where they were (sort of):
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/08/1 ... ticed.html

It certainly adds to the reputation of the Boy Scouts: disorganized and il-prepared. Sad that that organization suffers so much from well-intentioned volunteer leaders that just don't have it as together as a professional team.

How hard is it to say "Don't go in front of the leaders, ever."

or
"The leader pulls up the rear, always, always, always."

and

"The leaders need to always be able to communicate with each other (i.e. the group stays together)."

These are 'industry' standards that could have prevented this, potentially fatal, accident.

At some point the Scouts need to do better training and vetting of volunteers. I've now been to 3 different locations with plaques regarding Boy Scout Deaths due to lightning....

This mom is dumb to not sue the larger organization. They need to get sued to understnad this shouldn't happen. Its pure negligence by the larger organization for not providing this training, or, perhaps by the volunteers, if they were trained.

d_shorb wrote:How hard is it to say "Don't go in front of the leaders, ever."

Not hard to say; hard to get folks to obey, and some times not in everyone's best interest. I saw many boy scout groups this last week (including at least 1 on Borah that day) and they were generally tightly herded and well-controlled.

It is easy to get distracted when leading a group, and it only takes a moment. Even though I try to mother-hen people, I've had folks take off and get lost (or get in slight trouble) many times, all in a flash. And these folks are adults.

A typical situation is when the leader down-climbs an exposed class 3 section, then spots people down, one-by-one. The leader really must concentrate on the next descender, and also wants those who have completed to get off the landing, so there is room for the next person. Often one looks around at the end, to see people descending rapidly on random routes.

d_shorb wrote:This mom is dumb to not sue the larger organization.

That would be asinine. The larger organization is not responsible for this event. You only want to sue them because they have a bigger pocket than the adult who was present. But he shouldn't be sued either. The only impact to an action like that would be no one wanting to take someone else's kids outside.

And what are the damages? The boy wasn't even injured, so nothing to sue over. You can't sue someone for something that might have happened. Just try sueing someone who almost causes you to get into a fatal car accident.

Wow I'm glad the kid is alright. As far as the boy scouts go, stuff happens, even with one on one attention you can't prevent everything from happening. The best way to prevent this would be to lock your kids up inside all day and make them play video games. And we all know how appealing that is.

Who knows, if he wasn't taken to the hospital right away, a crazy driver might have killed him on his way home. You can't predict stuff like this so I don't see the point in blaming people and all this talk about suing. Totally ridicules!

Great points mrchad and Hotoven,
Having worked in the adolescent trip leading field for 15 years, i can get a bit presumptuous and passionate (or is it in-passionate) about these situations. As a Director of a program, I would fire those people, and expect to be fired.

One thing to keep in mind is that volunteers exist in many oranizations that have risk within their adolescent/child programming. Camps, Cities, Counties, aand the like are examples.
An organization, Boy Scouts in this case, is inevitably responsible for every trip its instructors (employees or volunteers) lead, and for the accidents (or lack there of).

mrchad9 wrote: The larger organization is not responsible for this event. You only want to sue them because they have a bigger pocket than the adult who was present.

I agree some people would sue for the money. Not me.

I want to sue because they are responsible for therr trip, and its because they are not responsibly implementing safe policies, or insuring their leaders are well trained, that the majority of the accidents happen. This one is a prime example of an industry standard practice (leaders at front and back of a group, pausing for anyone that takes a break) that most organizations follow (OB, NOLS, Camps, Adventures Cross Country, etc.).

Its not about money, its about creating a culture of menoring new volunteers and getting rid of them when they break a rule like that.

But he shouldn't be sued either.

No one should be sued, unless they are negligent, which he was in this case. Its not OK to lose a kid for several hours. Its just not OK! He should be sued for negligence for nearly killing a child he is supervising. An Outward Bound or NOLS instructor is held to that standard, so should Boy Scouts leaders.

The only impact to an action like that would be no one wanting to take someone else's kids outside.

I agree law suits would discourage some volunteers from participating. Obviously that isn't the goal, and one would hope that those of us wanting to volunteer still would even though we are required to take a certain number of training skills classes, like WFR, NOLS Leadership course, or AMGA Top-Rope management, etc.

I also agree that If people are discouraged by new required training classes , then it may spell disaster for the Boy Scouts volunteer base. Indeed, that is a better alternative then killing or hurting kids.

And what are the damages?

Creating a culture of haphazard trip leading and likelyhood of more accidents.

You can't sue someone for something that might have happened.

There are presidents in our industry that would support someone sueing over this. It's not considered an "incident" only if a kid dies. No. This is a major incident!!! Never in my years trip leading or directing did i have an incident this bad. 99% of trips never come close to this... Its extremely poor judgement. Someone could probably even sue the forest service for not requiring a permit for this trip.

When the organizations goal is to create adults, well-rounded ones, they have to first make sure their participants survive. Then, and only then, does the mission of mentoring children begin.

Hopefully I'm not being too provakative. That's not ny goal. I just want these Boy Scout accidents to stop happening.
When I'm hiring for trip leader positions, I always chose the OB instructor over the Boy Scout instructor.. ALWAYS. Their safety record (and training) is better. Period.

No, you are not being too provocative, but in my view it is statements like this that undermine your point of view.

d_shorb wrote:Someone could probably even sue the forest service for not requiring a permit for this trip.

I just do not think that is credible. Sure you could file a motion, but I think a judge would thow it out before a trial were even to begin.

And similarly with the organization. Look at it this way... if he was negligent, as you say, and this kid had died, do you really think murder charges would be brought? Even involuntary manslaughter? I just don't think this rises to that level. And with the kid ending up with no injuries, you don't even have anything to sue over.

I own a Toyota, but I cannot sue Toyota because my brakes might not work. Nor can I sue them even if my brakes actually completely fail, but I escape uninjured and without property damage. I can only sue if there are actually some damages to sue over.

To sue the Boy Scouts, or the trip leader, someone has to get hurt first, not just lost, even if they are negligent (and then if they were negligent or not, which I think they were not, is a seperate discussion).

Also... if 99% of trips never come close to this, you really don't have any evidence to support that the organization (and not the individual) should be the defendant.

I wouldn't sue, on the theory that it is unreasonable to expect everyone to make perfect decisions all the time, and I don't see any evidence of unreasonably, or willfully stupid decisions. That said, I wouldn't exactly call a chipped vertebra and a concussion "no injuries".

mrchad9 wrote:No, you are not being too provocative, but in my view it is statements like this that undermine your point of view.

d_shorb wrote:Someone could probably even sue the forest service for not requiring a permit for this trip.

I just do not think that is credible. Sure you could file a motion, but I think a judge would thow it out before a trial were even to begin.

And similarly with the organization. Look at it this way... if he was negligent, as you say, and this kid had died, do you really think murder charges would be brought? Even involuntary manslaughter? I just don't think this rises to that level. And with the kid ending up with no injuries, you don't even have anything to sue over.

I own a Toyota, but I cannot sue Toyota because my brakes might not work. Nor can I sue them even if my brakes actually completely fail, but I escape uninjured and without property damage. I can only sue if there are actually some damages to sue over.

To sue the Boy Scouts, or the trip leader, someone has to get hurt first, not just lost, even if they are negligent (and then if they were negligent or not, which I think they were not, is a seperate discussion).

Also... if 99% of trips never come close to this, you really don't have any evidence to support that the organization (and not the individual) should be the defendant.

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

An Aspen Health Services company was shut down, all administrators went to jail for 5 years, and direct service employees were put on probation for as long. This was because a kid died from an improperly treated staff infection. He died in 2.5 days. None of the trip leaders went to jail. All of the administrators are there now. I'll try to find an online connection to that.

Here's a few things to check out. Keep in mind the following examples are from improper care, let alone completely losing a child in the mountains.These three articles show that not only negligence would be considered, but the charge of homicide if the child had died:

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

http://www.cafety.org/privately-funded-programs/620-charges-filed-over-teenagers-death-at-camp-utah-aya-july-16-2008

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

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).