The Chief wrote:In a court of law within the United States of America, IGNORANCE of the Law is not a valid defense nor excuse for ones actions.
Nor should it be in this or any other case of this sort IMO.
Going blindly, in knowledge, equipment and experience, out into an environment that can kill you and then expecting some one to come save your ass when you wake the fk up and realize the reality of the situ, is not a valid reason to get a free ride... sorry.
Agree with your comments Chief
Definition of Negligent:
The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.
My thoughts:
This means if the community standard says that a climber should have crampons and basic safety gear to cross an ice field on a glaciated peak, then a person could be negligent if they climb it in tennis shoes. Most experts in the field of mountaineering would use crampons and basic safety gear. The Shasta climbing rangers suggest a basic list of gear to carry, as well as stating the conditions possible on this mountain. If a person disregards all of this and falls due to slipping on ice in tennis shoes and injures or kills someone else, they could be held criminally negligent in a court of law. Besides the legal ramifications, what about the moral obligation of the climber to do the right thing and not jepordize others ie; climbers and rescuers?