BC search and rescue team suspending operations

[habernac]

because of lack of legal protection. Good old lawsuits. If you're out in the backcountry, I think you are ultimately the one responsible for your health. If something goes wrong, don't go blaming someone else for "not doing enough" to find you and save your ass.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...11671-sun.html

[The Ditch]

I was going to post about this, because it really annoys me. If you're going to go out of bounds you are taking huge risks, you need to have advanced knowledge AND all the proper equipment. I really hope that this doesn't change Kickinghorse Resort at all because it is one of my favourite mountains.

[mykalberta]

I nominate Quebec skier Gilles Blackburn for the ever coveted....

[4X4]

These ######s are back? Too bad they didn't both die.

[kermitology]

Oh wow..

Please.. go ski there again, get lost because you're a moron and then there is NO ONE TO SAVE YOU ASSH(!LE!

I understand being upset about losing your wife, but to blame search and rescue.. give me a break. Take some personal responsibility you ######.

[burn_this_city]

Such a frivilous lawsuit, his own stupidity killed his wife, not the search and rescue people.

[mykalberta]

To any CP Lawyers, would this suit have any merrit at all?

These organizations obviously believe they do otherwise they wouldnt close operations. Is there any prior case law for this? This just seems crazy to me to sue. It would be like suing air ambulance for not getting to you quick enough after a bear attack.

[carom]

Does anyone else find it ironic that he is suing the search and rescue and KHM for ignoring his SOS signs when he would never had been in this position if he had not ignored the out-of-bounds sign or the waiver on his lift ticket?

[ken0042]

So if somebody else gets lost, and there is no search and rescue, can his family now in turn sue this guy who caused S&R to close operations?

I just don't see how this could be better? I mean, didn't S&R eventually find him? Would it have been better if he had just died?

Never mind his own actions.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Would this suit have any merrit at all?

Hard to say. Lots of government agencies (namely police and fire) have certain immunities to lawsuits while acting in accordance with their duties. However, those immunities have limitations - for example, gross negligence or intentional acts.

I'm not super-clear on the facts/causes of action alleged by the plaintiff in this case, but I would imagine he has a pretty big hurdle to clear to prove that search and rescue's actions departed so far from what's "normal" or "acceptable" that they were grossly negligent.

This case settles, I'm sure, which is unfortunate because it would be a great case to set precedence on, beyond fire and police. The BC gov't should have taken a stand early - not just to deter others from taking similar actions, but to allow search and rescue to continue... you know... searching and rescuing.

Damn French.

[troutman]

The first thing our Torts professor said to us was "don't help anyone in danger, you will just get sued".

Some jurisdictions have "good samaratin" laws to protect people from lawsuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_Law

In Canada, a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for 'wrongdoing'. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they were to make some mistake in treatment.[1]

In Canada, good Samaritan acts are a provincial power. Each province has its own act, such as Ontario[17] and British Columbia's[18] respective good Samaritan acts; Alberta's Emergency Medical Aid Act; [19] and Nova Scotia's Volunteer Services Act[20] Only in Quebec, a civil law jurisdiction, does a person have a general duty to respond if he is first-aid or medically certified.[21] In British Columbia, persons have a duty to respond only where a child is endangered.

An example of a typical Canadian law is provided here, from Ontario's Good Samaritan Act, 2001, section 2:

Protection from liability 2. (1) Despite the rules of common law, a person described in subsection (2) who voluntarily and without reasonable expectation of compensation or reward provides the services described in that subsection is not liable for damages that result from the person's negligence in acting or failing to act while providing the services, unless it is established that the damages were caused by the gross negligence of the person. 2001, c. 2, s. 2 (1).[22]

[Clever_Iggy]

Trout - does the Good Samaritan law apply to those who have a duty to rescue - ie. that's there job, they put the victim in peril, parent-child relationship, etc...? I believe that it protects the average person who does attempt to rescue someone in danger and in doing so causes injury.

[MelBridgeman]

so much for personal responsibility

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Trout - does the Good Samaritan law apply to those who have a duty to rescue - ie. that's there job, they put the victim in peril, parent-child relationship, etc...? I believe that it protects the average person who does attempt to rescue someone in danger and in doing so causes injury.

Good Samaritan laws may be confused with the duty to rescue, as described above. U.S. and Canadian approaches to this issue differ. Under the common law, good Samaritan laws provide a defence against torts arising from the attempted rescue. Such laws do not constitute a duty to rescue, such as exists in some civil law countries,[23] and in the common law under certain circumstances. However, the duty to rescue where it exists may itself imply a shield from liability; for example, under the German law of "Unterlassene Hilfeleistung" (neglect of duty to provide assistance), a citizen is obliged to provide first aid when necessary and is immune from prosecution if assistance given in good faith turns out to be harmful. In Canada, all provinces with the exception of Quebec operate on the basis of English Common Law. Quebec operates a civil law system, based in part on the Napoleonic Code, and the principle of duty to rescue does apply.[24]

To illustrate a variation in the concept of duty to rescue, in the Canadian province of Ontario, the Occupational Health and Safety Act provides all workers with the right to refuse to perform unsafe work. There are, however, specific exceptions to this right. When the "life, health or safety of another person is at risk," then specific groups, including "police officers, firefighters, or employees of a hospital, clinic or other type of medical worker (including EMS)" are specifically excluded from the right to refuse unsafe work.[25]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

[firebug]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Oh wow..

Please.. go ski there again, get lost because you're a moron and then there is NO ONE TO SAVE YOU ASSH(!LE!

I understand being upset about losing your wife, but to blame search and rescue.. give me a break. Take some personal responsibility you ######.

The unsubstantiated rumours I have heard out of Golden have suggested that this was a cheap Quebec divorce.