Hiker rescued from New Hampshire summit may have to foot the bill | TribLIVE.com

Hiker rescued from New Hampshire summit may have to foot the bill

Associated Press
In this July 27, 2016 file photo, a pair of hikers traverse a trail on Mount Washington, N.H. New Hampshire Fish and Game officials said, Tuesday, June 18, 2019, they’re likely to recommend charging an 80-year-old hiker who was rescued while trying to reach the summit of Mount Washington. James Clark, of Dublin, Ohio, was found Friday, June 14, 2019, immobile in the fetal position with signs of hypothermia. Lt. Mark Ober said his agency would likely recommend that Clark pay for the cost of his rescue since he was unprepared for the hike. He didn’t have the right clothing to make the ascent in freezing rain and temperatures that were below freezing.

CONCORD, N.H. — An 80-year-old hiker who was rescued trying to reach the summit of Mount Washington could end up footing the bill for the emergency services, New Hampshire officials said Tuesday, amid efforts to raise awareness about the dangers of the popular tourist destination.

Authorities may even file criminal charges in the case, after two relatives left James Clark behind, Maj. David Walsh of the state’s Fish and Game Department said.

Walsh said he wasn’t aware of anyone ever being charged criminally in a case like this, but he could not say what the charges might be or even who might be charged, noting that officials were in the early stages of their consideration.

Clark was found Friday immobile in the fetal position with signs of hypothermia hours after telling his two grandsons to go on without him. Clark was treated at a hospital for non-life-threatening injuries and released Saturday.

“This probably wouldn’t have happened,” if the group had stayed together, Lt. Mark Ober of Fish and Game said.

Mount Washington is notorious for its erratic weather, particularly its high winds. A 231-mph gust on the 6,288-foot mountain in 1934 remains the highest wind speed ever observed by man. Two people who were hiking in the area have died in recent days.

Clark didn’t have the right clothing or gear to make the ascent in freezing rain, Ober said. As a result, the agency will likely recommend to the attorney general’s office that Clark pay for the cost of his rescue, taking advantage of a law that allows the state to recoup rescue costs when it determines that a person acted negligently.

Fish and Game has recommended that nine people be billed this year and 25 in 2018. Bills can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on the number of people involved and the length of the search. Ober could not say how much Clark might be charged.

“People think it’s a walk in the park,” said Ober, noting there have been 150 deaths around Mount Washington since the 1800s.

“They don’t understand that it could be 70 degrees at the base and it will be 12 degrees with blowing wind and snow potentially at the summit.” he continued.

Clark, of Dublin, Ohio, told the New Hampshire Union Leader that he blamed himself for telling his two grandsons to go ahead without him. They ended up reaching the summit and then returning a different way. With no sign of Clark by evening, the pair called search and rescue officers.

When rescuers found Clark on Lion Head Trail, they gave him dry clothes and warmed him up in a sleeping bag before carrying him about 2 miles to the nearest road. From there, an ambulance took him to the hospital.

Kevin McNerney, 19, told the newspaper he would understand if his family is billed, saying “there is no price you can put on a human life.”

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.