FREE TAPATALK APP

RandFan · 5th June 2007, 12:04 AM

This is really bothering me.

Quote:

Man Dies of Thirst During Survival Outing

Pale, wracked by cramps, his speech slurred, the 29-year-old New Jersey man was desperate for water and hallucinating so badly he mistook a tree for a person.

After going roughly 10 hours without a drink in the 100-degree heat, he finally dropped dead of thirst, face down in the dirt, less than 100 yards from the goal: a cave with a pool of water.

But Buschow was no solitary soul, lost and alone in the desert. He and 11 other hikers from various walks of life were being led by expert guides on a wilderness-survival adventure designed to test their physical and mental toughness.

And the guides, it turned out, were carrying emergency water on that torrid summer day.

...

Noting Buschow signed liability waivers, the school said: "Mr. Buschow expressly assumed the risk of serious injury or death prior to participating."

Questions:

Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence?

Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman).

Thoughts?

Cylinder · 5th June 2007, 12:13 AM

One cannot waive any type of criminal responsibility - the law just does not work that way. Crimes are committed against the state - even property crimes or "crimes against the person.

slingblade · 5th June 2007, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

This is really bothering me.

Questions:

Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence?

Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman).

Thoughts?

I'm not an expert, either, but I imagine that terminology applies to your risk of hurting yourself. The waiver should not apply in this case, where a paid guide could save your life and chooses not to.

RandFan · 5th June 2007, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

One cannot waive any type of criminal responsibility - the law just does not work that way. Crimes are committed against the state - even property crimes or "crimes against the person.

That's what I figured.

From the article.

Quote:

Garfield County authorities declined to file charges, saying there was insufficient evidence the school acted with criminal negligence. The prosecutor said participants knew they were taking a risk.

Ok, so? And how is their insufficient evidence? Isn't it prima facie? What does "experts with water" and a guy exhibiting dehydration and then dying of dehydration add up to?

shuize · 5th June 2007, 01:27 AM

Prosecutorial discretion. I've seen plenty of cases charged that I thought were crap and probably as many dropped by prosecutors that I thought had merit.

My first question as part a the civil suit might just be, "So, why were you carrying emergency water again?"

KingMerv00 · 5th June 2007, 09:20 AM

Sounds like a malpractice case to me. Considering their line of work, the experts should know what dehydration looks like.

The guides had a legal duty to their clients and failed to follow through. As near as I can tell from the story anyway.

davefoc · 5th June 2007, 09:27 AM

I"m inclined to see this as the right decision based on the facts as they were presented. For me it is a close call and a more detailed understanding of the facts might make me change my mind.

If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in.

I have some experience hiking and mountain bike riding in high temperatures and the conditions described in the article are worse than anything I would have voluntarily taken part in. Low humidity, 100 degree temperatures are not much of a problem for most people if they aren't moving. But that situation changes very quickly if somebody is walking. Ten hours of walking without water in that kind of environment would be extremely dangerous so I am also sympathetic to the view that the organizers of this thing should at least be subject to some kind of civil penalties.

Beerina · 5th June 2007, 09:44 AM

On the other hand, the customers have a right to expect their guides to behave in a reasonable manner within the bounds of law and the contract. If they can't tell dangerous dehydration, they have no business doing that kind of work.

IANAL, I, too, wonder if you can waive away civil penalties for the portion that are criminal activities.

Miss Anthrope · 5th June 2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

I'm not an expert, either, but I imagine that terminology applies to your risk of hurting yourself. The waiver should not apply in this case, where a paid guide could save your life and chooses not to.

Exactly my thoughts. Carrying water and choosing to allow someone to die is absolutely appalling, and it should be criminal.

ponderingturtle · 5th June 2007, 10:41 AM

I am thinking about this vs the Hold your Wee for a Wii case. In this they clearly knew of the danger had prepared for it, and did not act to prevent a death. In that one they ignored the danger, where not prepared to act.

Is one more reprehensible than the other and why?

Tmy · 5th June 2007, 02:31 PM

Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed.

Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent.

They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.

KingMerv00 · 5th June 2007, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed.

Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent.

They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.

(Wonders if he is kidding. Well just in case...)

They brought guides because that wanted a certain level of safety in addition to adventure.

Should roller coasters not be subject to safety regulations?

Tmy · 5th June 2007, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

(Wonders if he is kidding. Well just in case...)

They brought guides because that wanted a certain level of safety in addition to adventure.

Should roller coasters not be subject to safety regulations?

Well they DID have water with them.

Would they be less culpable if they didnt have water?
Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one?

Lonewulf · 5th June 2007, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Well they DID have water with them.

Would they be less culpable if they didnt have water?
Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one?

This example is relevant how, again?

Let me quote the relevant bits again, just in case you missed it.

Quote:

But Buschow was no solitary soul, lost and alone in the desert. He and 11 other hikers from various walks of life were being led by expert guides on a wilderness-survival adventure designed to test their physical and mental toughness.

And the guides, it turned out, were carrying emergency water on that torrid summer day.

Here's an answer that's relevant: You have a heart attack in front of a doctor, and he sits and watches you amusedly without trying to save your life. Is he okay then?

Miss Anthrope · 5th June 2007, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one?

No, but they would most likely be held liable if they refused to call an ambulance using those phones they have installed in the amusement park.
There are warning signs outside of most roller coasters, so the person took the risk. Refusing the man reasonable assistance once something bad happened is another issue altogether. And a more appropriate analogy.

slingblade · 5th June 2007, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed.

Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent.

They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right.

Miss Anthrope · 5th June 2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right.

I hear ya.

[derail]
Hey, did your stuff happen today? Everything ok?
[/derail}

Lonewulf · 5th June 2007, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right.

Agreed.

RandFan · 5th June 2007, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Tmy

Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed.

Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent.

They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.

?

"Wuss", is that a medical term? How does dying make one a wuss? I though wuss was a mental thing. This guy was pushed to the point of death. He went on a death march. That's not being a wuss. Oh, and BTW, they made him dump out extra water he got from a stream.

What the hell does it mean "they probably thought he could hang"? One would think that "experts" would be able to recognize garden variety dehydration severe enough to cause death. If not, did the organization warn potential customers that their "experts" were incapable of rudimentary first aid? Absent that I think most reasonable people would conclude that the experts wouldn't push anyone to the point of death. And let's be honest here, forcing the victim to empty his water bottle was pushing him to the point of death. Not giving a severely dehydrated man water is pushing that person to the point of death.

In any event, your post is an excellent example of depraved indifference. Thank you. Object lessons are the best kind.

casebro · 5th June 2007, 08:41 PM

Would you recognise dehydration? Every time I saw somebody talking to trees in the desert, it was due to something he had voluntarily ingested. I wouldn't think he needs water.

Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"? If the former, then gross negligence. If the latter, then the hiker had no expectation of medical diagnosis on the hike.

Earthborn · 5th June 2007, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by davefoc

If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in.

Too hard? Even if they hadn't let him die, I'm at a loss why this sort of 'course' is even legal. It sounds to me like the whole idea of the course was to push people very close to death:

Quote:

They wanted him to dig deep, push himself beyond his known limits, and make it to the cave on his own. (...) "Mr. Buschow expressly assumed the risk of serious injury or death prior to participating." (...) BOSS emphasizes personal growth through adversity, and using your wits to survive. (...) The course is intended to push people "past those false limits your mind has set for your body." (...) "Somewhere along the many miles of sagebrush flats, red rock canyons, and mesa tops of Southern Utah - somewhere between the thirst, the hunger and the sweat - you'll discover the real destination: yourself," (...) Some people vomited that day, including a man who got sick three times - a typical misery on the rigorous course, according to BOSS. (...) "One thing that BOSS offers you is an opportunity to push yourself physically into the red zone.

I don't see how this is any different than any other form of physical abuse. "Personal growth through adversity", what a load of hooey. I guess they didn't think the slogan "pay $3175 up front and get yourself likely nearly killed" wouldn't attract a lot of customers.

quixotecoyote · 5th June 2007, 08:52 PM

Exactly what were these guides experts in? They were leading a group of people who were paying to be pushed to extreme conditions. Did they have any qualifications that would lead one to expect them to be able to differentiate between the dehydration the customer wants as part of the ultra-macho experience as opposed to the dehydration that will kill them?

slingblade · 5th June 2007, 08:58 PM

I know enough to know that thirst is the first sign of dehydration, and even if we're doing a survival course, I know enough not to let that thirst go on too long.

But, hey, the moron got what he paid for, isn't that right? He went out to see if he could survive, and he didn't. Myth busted, or something.

Earthborn · 5th June 2007, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"?

I think expert guide should at the very least mean "knowing that making people walk for hours in blazing heat without a drink is very unhealthy".

RandFan · 5th June 2007, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Would you recognise dehydration? Every time I saw somebody talking to trees in the desert, it was due to something he had voluntarily ingested. I wouldn't think he needs water.

Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"? If the former, then gross negligence. If the latter, then the hiker had no expectation of medical diagnosis on the hike.

I can only keep repeating myself. You are asking the wrong questions.

It is reasonable for a person entering such a program to assume that the "experts" would have some modicum of ability to provide emergency treatment AND understand the inherent risks DIRECTLY related to the activity. Dehydration was without argument directly related. Anyone entering such a program would absolutely have an expectation of such a rudimentary understanding of perhaps the greatest threat of the entire ordeal. Hell, try googling dehydration and see if you can't get enough information to diagnose dehydration? Is it really too much to expect that these Einsteins would have some knowledge for such a risk?

So, the question becomes, did the experts know how to recognize dehydration?

There is no good answer to that question.

No means gross negligence.
Yes means depraved indifference.

quixotecoyote · 5th June 2007, 09:08 PM

But again, he's paying to be dehydrated. Is it possible to judge recreational dehydration from fatal dehydration?

RandFan · 5th June 2007, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Exactly what were these guides experts in? They were leading a group of people who were paying to be pushed to extreme conditions. Did they have any qualifications that would lead one to expect them to be able to differentiate between the dehydration the customer wants as part of the ultra-macho experience as opposed to the dehydration that will kill them?

Given that dehydration was the single greatest threat to the people they were responsible for and given that there is ample information available on the net to diagnose sever dehydration then I would have to say that they damn sure should have known how to recognize this guy was in serious trouble.

RandFan · 5th June 2007, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

But again, he's paying to be dehydrated. Is it possible to judge recreational dehydration from fatal dehydration?

Yes, I have to say yes. Human life is a bit too important to take so cavalierly.

And I will say again, a reasonable person would assume that such "experts" would be familiar with the single greatest threat facing them.

I'll repeat what someone else said earlier, what was the emergency water for exactly?

Miss Anthrope · 5th June 2007, 10:12 PM

Randfan, I feel your frustration. Can't even post because I can't presently reply without several rule 8 violations.

The Atheist · 5th June 2007, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does.

Nominated, as edited above, with reference to other post removed as irrelevant.

davefoc · 5th June 2007, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by davefoc

If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in.

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Too hard? Even if they hadn't let him die, I'm at a loss why this sort of 'course' is even legal. It sounds to me like the whole idea of the course was to push people very close to death:I don't see how this is any different than any other form of physical abuse. "Personal growth through adversity", what a load of hooey. I guess they didn't think the slogan "pay $3175 up front and get yourself likely nearly killed" wouldn't attract a lot of customers.

I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter.

Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die?

My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case.

Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more.

The Atheist · 5th June 2007, 10:23 PM

Here's another interesting one for you, RandFan:

Woman dies after power disconnection for overdue bill cuts off her oxygen machine. The jury's still out on who's to blame, but it shows the cheapness of human life - $160.

The case you mentioned - couple of things to know; what were the instructions given before the start, did the person seek help and in what way. Any others I'd have to come up with, but one scenario struck me as possible - participants might be advised to stock up on water prior to starting and the deceased might not have. There are always a few variables, but good spot.

Kerberos · 5th June 2007, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by davefoc

I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter.

Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die?

My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case.

Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more.

The issue isn't just that he died, had he been bitten by a rattlesnake and died no one would blame the company, just like we would not blame the Mount Everest guides if one of their costumers feel down and died. The problem is that the guides displayed what seems to me to be, by any reasonable definition, gross neglience. If a person who has been walking in high temperatures without water for hours begin hallucinating, you shouldn't need to be an expert on anything to draw the obvious conclusion, yet these supposed expert guides failed to do so.

RandFan · 6th June 2007, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by davefoc

I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter.

Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die?

My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case.

Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more.

I keep harping on it but if a leader of a Mt. Everest expedition knew of a specific risk and let one of the people in his party die because he or she did nothing to mitigate the risk then I think they would be negligent. How would they not be? It sounds like you have found a legal way to murder someone. If you are into watching people die then this is a great way to do it, assuming you are right and there is no responsibility on the part of the people who should be responsible.

But I don't think that is realistic. I don't think any of us really believe that once a person signs up for a risky endeavor that all bets are off and the leaders have zero responsibility. Do you really believe that?

The point is should the so called "experts" have known when the victim had become seriously dehydrated? I can't see how anyone can say no. Given that this is one of the most significant risks if not the most significant risks then the answer has to be yes.

RandFan · 6th June 2007, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

The issue isn't just that he died, had he been bitten by a rattlesnake and died no one would blame the company, just like we would not blame the Mount Everest guides if one of their costumers feel down and died. The problem is that the guides displayed what seems to me to be, by any reasonable definition, gross neglience. If a person who has been walking in high temperatures without water for hours begin hallucinating, you shouldn't need to be an expert on anything to draw the obvious conclusion, yet these supposed expert guides failed to do so.

Good point. Also, the guy lost the ability to see color.

There is an elephant in the room and no one wants to address it.

What was the emergency water for?

slingblade · 6th June 2007, 02:28 AM

I've no problem addressing it.

The emergency water should have been for use in medical emergencies, such as severe dehydration. That they brought it shows someone knew this was a possibility and prepared for it. It shows someone wasn't supposed to let matters get as far as they did.

It shows this wasn't supposed to be a real do-or-die adventure, that there were limits, and someone knew that, and prepared for the eventuality of one of the clients meeting that limit prematurely and needing the farking water that no one gave him.

He was just another walking wallet. Until he stopped walking, that is.

Ove · 6th June 2007, 04:10 AM

I am one of those old enough to remember the horrible tv pictures of a severely dehydrated female marathon runner staggering around the stadium before she collapsed. Nobody stopped her because "they wouldn't spoil her chances of finishing" (she wasn't even among the first). She was lucky, she survived but it was clearly stated afterwards that officials should have intervened and stopped her.
In this case you have trained survival guides, carrying water, watching a man die of dehydration. THERE IS NO EXCUSE... They have far exceeded their mandate. They are there to ensure the participants safety. They have failed to live up to that responsibility and a man has died. They must be punished. EOS!!!!

mhaze · 6th June 2007, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

This is really bothering me.

Questions:

Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference?
Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence?

Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman).

Thoughts?

The rights of relatives of the deseased are not limited by the signed paperwork.

But some states-CO for example - have laws to specifically protect operators in dangerous sports.

3point14 · 6th June 2007, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

But again, he's paying to be dehydrated. Is it possible to judge recreational dehydration from fatal dehydration?

If it is possible to judge, then the 'experts' were either criminally negligent or in the wrong job.

If it isn't possible to judge, should they really be promoting these sort of 'adventures'?

ponderingturtle · 6th June 2007, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

This example is relevant how, again?

Let me quote the relevant bits again, just in case you missed it.

Here's an answer that's relevant: You have a heart attack in front of a doctor, and he sits and watches you amusedly without trying to save your life. Is he okay then?

Bad analogy, because the doctor might not have any duty to act in that situation. This would be like if you are visiting your doctor and have a heart attack, they are in charge and supposed to be professionals who know how to do this safer than others.

5th June 2007, 12:04 AM	#1
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,932	Manslaughter Legal In Utah? This is really bothering me. Quote: Man Dies of Thirst During Survival Outing Pale, wracked by cramps, his speech slurred, the 29-year-old New Jersey man was desperate for water and hallucinating so badly he mistook a tree for a person. After going roughly 10 hours without a drink in the 100-degree heat, he finally dropped dead of thirst, face down in the dirt, less than 100 yards from the goal: a cave with a pool of water. But Buschow was no solitary soul, lost and alone in the desert. He and 11 other hikers from various walks of life were being led by expert guides on a wilderness-survival adventure designed to test their physical and mental toughness. And the guides, it turned out, were carrying emergency water on that torrid summer day. ... Noting Buschow signed liability waivers, the school said: "Mr. Buschow expressly assumed the risk of serious injury or death prior to participating." Questions: Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference? Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference? Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence? Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman). Thoughts?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th June 2007, 12:13 AM	#2
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,931	One cannot waive any type of criminal responsibility - the law just does not work that way. Crimes are committed against the state - even property crimes or "crimes against the person.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

5th June 2007, 12:18 AM	#3
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by RandFan This is really bothering me. Questions: Did the "expert guides" demonstrate either gross negligence or depraved indifference? Can a waiver absolve criminal negligence or depraved indifference? Can a waiver absolve all instances of civil negligence? Obviously I'm not an attorney though I do watch The People's Court religiously (call me Rainman). Thoughts? I'm not an expert, either, but I imagine that terminology applies to your risk of hurting yourself. The waiver should not apply in this case, where a paid guide could save your life and chooses not to.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

5th June 2007, 12:24 AM	#4
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,932	Originally Posted by Cylinder One cannot waive any type of criminal responsibility - the law just does not work that way. Crimes are committed against the state - even property crimes or "crimes against the person. That's what I figured. From the article. Quote: Garfield County authorities declined to file charges, saying there was insufficient evidence the school acted with criminal negligence. The prosecutor said participants knew they were taking a risk. Ok, so? And how is their insufficient evidence? Isn't it prima facie? What does "experts with water" and a guy exhibiting dehydration and then dying of dehydration add up to?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th June 2007, 01:27 AM	#5
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,320	Prosecutorial discretion. I've seen plenty of cases charged that I thought were crap and probably as many dropped by prosecutors that I thought had merit. My first question as part a the civil suit might just be, "So, why were you carrying emergency water again?"
	Last edited by shuize; 5th June 2007 at 01:49 AM.

5th June 2007, 09:20 AM	#6
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Sounds like a malpractice case to me. Considering their line of work, the experts should know what dehydration looks like. The guides had a legal duty to their clients and failed to follow through. As near as I can tell from the story anyway.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

5th June 2007, 09:27 AM	#7
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,333	I"m inclined to see this as the right decision based on the facts as they were presented. For me it is a close call and a more detailed understanding of the facts might make me change my mind. If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in. I have some experience hiking and mountain bike riding in high temperatures and the conditions described in the article are worse than anything I would have voluntarily taken part in. Low humidity, 100 degree temperatures are not much of a problem for most people if they aren't moving. But that situation changes very quickly if somebody is walking. Ten hours of walking without water in that kind of environment would be extremely dangerous so I am also sympathetic to the view that the organizers of this thing should at least be subject to some kind of civil penalties.

5th June 2007, 09:44 AM	#8
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	On the other hand, the customers have a right to expect their guides to behave in a reasonable manner within the bounds of law and the contract. If they can't tell dangerous dehydration, they have no business doing that kind of work. IANAL, I, too, wonder if you can waive away civil penalties for the portion that are criminal activities.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

5th June 2007, 09:54 AM	#9
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Originally Posted by slingblade I'm not an expert, either, but I imagine that terminology applies to your risk of hurting yourself. The waiver should not apply in this case, where a paid guide could save your life and chooses not to. Exactly my thoughts. Carrying water and choosing to allow someone to die is absolutely appalling, and it should be criminal.
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

5th June 2007, 10:41 AM	#10
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	I am thinking about this vs the Hold your Wee for a Wii case. In this they clearly knew of the danger had prepared for it, and did not act to prevent a death. In that one they ignored the danger, where not prepared to act. Is one more reprehensible than the other and why?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

5th June 2007, 02:31 PM	#11
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed. Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent. They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss.
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

5th June 2007, 02:49 PM	#12
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Tmy Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed. Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent. They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss. (Wonders if he is kidding. Well just in case...) They brought guides because that wanted a certain level of safety in addition to adventure. Should roller coasters not be subject to safety regulations?
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

5th June 2007, 02:57 PM	#13
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 (Wonders if he is kidding. Well just in case...) They brought guides because that wanted a certain level of safety in addition to adventure. Should roller coasters not be subject to safety regulations? Well they DID have water with them. Would they be less culpable if they didnt have water? Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one?
	__________________ "Common sense is something that skeptics can and should do without." -shanek

5th June 2007, 03:30 PM	#14
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by Tmy Well they DID have water with them. Would they be less culpable if they didnt have water? Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one? This example is relevant how, again? Let me quote the relevant bits again, just in case you missed it. Quote: But Buschow was no solitary soul, lost and alone in the desert. He and 11 other hikers from various walks of life were being led by expert guides on a wilderness-survival adventure designed to test their physical and mental toughness. And the guides, it turned out, were carrying emergency water on that torrid summer day. Here's an answer that's relevant: You have a heart attack in front of a doctor, and he sits and watches you amusedly without trying to save your life. Is he okay then?
	__________________ Writing.com Account Last edited by Lonewulf; 5th June 2007 at 04:03 PM.

5th June 2007, 03:36 PM	#15
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Originally Posted by Tmy Should rollercoaster parks be lible if a passenger has a heart attack on one? No, but they would most likely be held liable if they refused to call an ambulance using those phones they have installed in the amusement park. There are warning signs outside of most roller coasters, so the person took the risk. Refusing the man reasonable assistance once something bad happened is another issue altogether. And a more appropriate analogy.
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

5th June 2007, 04:40 PM	#16
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Tmy Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed. Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent. They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss. When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

5th June 2007, 04:42 PM	#17
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Originally Posted by slingblade When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right. I hear ya. [derail] Hey, did your stuff happen today? Everything ok? [/derail}
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

5th June 2007, 05:24 PM	#18
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by slingblade When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. That post just helps convince me I'm right. Agreed.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

5th June 2007, 08:36 PM	#19
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,932	Originally Posted by Tmy Why should they get in trouble for that jackasses decision to go on a SURVIVALIST challange!!!? The whole point is to "test your toughness/" Well loolk like he failed. Its not like he asked for water and they told him no. Might as well charge a boxer for assault cause he knocked out his opponent. They didnt choose to let him die. They probably though he could hang. Turns out he was a wuss. ? "Wuss", is that a medical term? How does dying make one a wuss? I though wuss was a mental thing. This guy was pushed to the point of death. He went on a death march. That's not being a wuss. Oh, and BTW, they made him dump out extra water he got from a stream. What the hell does it mean "they probably thought he could hang"? One would think that "experts" would be able to recognize garden variety dehydration severe enough to cause death. If not, did the organization warn potential customers that their "experts" were incapable of rudimentary first aid? Absent that I think most reasonable people would conclude that the experts wouldn't push anyone to the point of death. And let's be honest here, forcing the victim to empty his water bottle was pushing him to the point of death. Not giving a severely dehydrated man water is pushing that person to the point of death. In any event, your post is an excellent example of depraved indifference. Thank you. Object lessons are the best kind.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th June 2007, 08:41 PM	#20
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,880	Would you recognise dehydration? Every time I saw somebody talking to trees in the desert, it was due to something he had voluntarily ingested. I wouldn't think he needs water. Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"? If the former, then gross negligence. If the latter, then the hiker had no expectation of medical diagnosis on the hike.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,880	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

5th June 2007, 08:49 PM	#21
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,675	Originally Posted by davefoc If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in. Too hard? Even if they hadn't let him die, I'm at a loss why this sort of 'course' is even legal. It sounds to me like the whole idea of the course was to push people very close to death: Quote: They wanted him to dig deep, push himself beyond his known limits, and make it to the cave on his own. (...) "Mr. Buschow expressly assumed the risk of serious injury or death prior to participating." (...) BOSS emphasizes personal growth through adversity, and using your wits to survive. (...) The course is intended to push people "past those false limits your mind has set for your body." (...) "Somewhere along the many miles of sagebrush flats, red rock canyons, and mesa tops of Southern Utah - somewhere between the thirst, the hunger and the sweat - you'll discover the real destination: yourself," (...) Some people vomited that day, including a man who got sick three times - a typical misery on the rigorous course, according to BOSS. (...) "One thing that BOSS offers you is an opportunity to push yourself physically into the red zone. I don't see how this is any different than any other form of physical abuse. "Personal growth through adversity", what a load of hooey. I guess they didn't think the slogan "pay $3175 up front and get yourself likely nearly killed" wouldn't attract a lot of customers.
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli Last edited by Earthborn; 5th June 2007 at 09:02 PM.

5th June 2007, 08:52 PM	#22
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Exactly what were these guides experts in? They were leading a group of people who were paying to be pushed to extreme conditions. Did they have any qualifications that would lead one to expect them to be able to differentiate between the dehydration the customer wants as part of the ultra-macho experience as opposed to the dehydration that will kill them?
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

5th June 2007, 08:58 PM	#23
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	I know enough to know that thirst is the first sign of dehydration, and even if we're doing a survival course, I know enough not to let that thirst go on too long. But, hey, the moron got what he paid for, isn't that right? He went out to see if he could survive, and he didn't. Myth busted, or something.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

5th June 2007, 09:01 PM	#24
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,675	Originally Posted by casebro Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"? I think expert guide should at the very least mean "knowing that making people walk for hours in blazing heat without a drink is very unhealthy".
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

5th June 2007, 09:06 PM	#25
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,932	Originally Posted by casebro Would you recognise dehydration? Every time I saw somebody talking to trees in the desert, it was due to something he had voluntarily ingested. I wouldn't think he needs water. Does expert guide mean "experienced paramedic" or does it mean "knows where he is going"? If the former, then gross negligence. If the latter, then the hiker had no expectation of medical diagnosis on the hike. I can only keep repeating myself. You are asking the wrong questions. It is reasonable for a person entering such a program to assume that the "experts" would have some modicum of ability to provide emergency treatment AND understand the inherent risks DIRECTLY related to the activity. Dehydration was without argument directly related. Anyone entering such a program would absolutely have an expectation of such a rudimentary understanding of perhaps the greatest threat of the entire ordeal. Hell, try googling dehydration and see if you can't get enough information to diagnose dehydration? Is it really too much to expect that these Einsteins would have some knowledge for such a risk? So, the question becomes, did the experts know how to recognize dehydration? There is no good answer to that question. No means gross negligence. Yes means depraved indifference.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th June 2007, 09:08 PM	#26
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	But again, he's paying to be dehydrated. Is it possible to judge recreational dehydration from fatal dehydration?
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

5th June 2007, 09:08 PM	#27
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,932	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Exactly what were these guides experts in? They were leading a group of people who were paying to be pushed to extreme conditions. Did they have any qualifications that would lead one to expect them to be able to differentiate between the dehydration the customer wants as part of the ultra-macho experience as opposed to the dehydration that will kill them? Given that dehydration was the single greatest threat to the people they were responsible for and given that there is ample information available on the net to diagnose sever dehydration then I would have to say that they damn sure should have known how to recognize this guy was in serious trouble.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th June 2007, 09:12 PM	#28
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,932	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote But again, he's paying to be dehydrated. Is it possible to judge recreational dehydration from fatal dehydration? Yes, I have to say yes. Human life is a bit too important to take so cavalierly. And I will say again, a reasonable person would assume that such "experts" would be familiar with the single greatest threat facing them. I'll repeat what someone else said earlier, what was the emergency water for exactly?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th June 2007, 10:12 PM	#29
Miss Anthrope All your post are belong to us Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: A Tiny Oasis in the PNW Posts: 3,597	Randfan, I feel your frustration. Can't even post because I can't presently reply without several rule 8 violations.
	__________________ We're not elected officials, nor are we paid professionals. You want us to act as such? Fine. Cough up the cash - because as a professional, I don't come cheap."-Jmercer, who happens to rock.[/color]

5th June 2007, 10:15 PM	#30
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Within smelling distance of the Grammar Death Camps Posts: 13,928	Originally Posted by slingblade When I wonder sometimes why people can't get the help they need, I tell myself it's because human life really doesn't matter to many folks, though they say it does. Nominated, as edited above, with reference to other post removed as irrelevant.
	__________________ Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted: It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.

5th June 2007, 10:22 PM	#31
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,333	Originally Posted by davefoc If we are going to come down too hard on people who promote and organize dangerous activities we will eliminate many activities that people seem to want to participate in. Originally Posted by Earthborn Too hard? Even if they hadn't let him die, I'm at a loss why this sort of 'course' is even legal. It sounds to me like the whole idea of the course was to push people very close to death:I don't see how this is any different than any other form of physical abuse. "Personal growth through adversity", what a load of hooey. I guess they didn't think the slogan "pay $3175 up front and get yourself likely nearly killed" wouldn't attract a lot of customers. I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter. Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die? My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case. Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more.

5th June 2007, 10:23 PM	#32
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Within smelling distance of the Grammar Death Camps Posts: 13,928	Here's another interesting one for you, RandFan: Woman dies after power disconnection for overdue bill cuts off her oxygen machine. The jury's still out on who's to blame, but it shows the cheapness of human life - $160. The case you mentioned - couple of things to know; what were the instructions given before the start, did the person seek help and in what way. Any others I'd have to come up with, but one scenario struck me as possible - participants might be advised to stock up on water prior to starting and the deceased might not have. There are always a few variables, but good spot.
	__________________ Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted: It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.

5th June 2007, 11:17 PM	#33
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by davefoc I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter. Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die? My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case. Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more. The issue isn't just that he died, had he been bitten by a rattlesnake and died no one would blame the company, just like we would not blame the Mount Everest guides if one of their costumers feel down and died. The problem is that the guides displayed what seems to me to be, by any reasonable definition, gross neglience. If a person who has been walking in high temperatures without water for hours begin hallucinating, you shouldn't need to be an expert on anything to draw the obvious conclusion, yet these supposed expert guides failed to do so.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

6th June 2007, 12:38 AM	#34
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,932	Originally Posted by davefoc I am somewhat ambivalent about this case. I think if I knew the details better I might side with the idea that it was manslaughter. Manslaughter as I understand it requires an intent to recklessly endanger another's life and that a death results as a result of that endangerment. Based on my non-expert, but informed view of the situation what they did was clearly endangering people's lives. But was it reckless? People who fly skydivers, people who run ski lifts, people who run Mt. Everest climbing expeditions, etc. endanger their customers. My guess is that the survival school exercise was safer than a Mt. Everest expedition. Should the leaders of Mt. Everest expedition companies be tried for manslaughter when one of their clients die? My sense about this case was there was inadequate intent on the part of the people running the school to recklessly endanger for a manslaughter conviction. I think they might be guilty of some lesser crime and as I already mentioned I think that they should bear some civil liability in this case. Based on personal experience and knowledge it seems like what this company was doing was extremely risky. I don't disagree with you very strongly on this Earthborn and like I said above I might change my mind with a better understanding of the facts or maybe just thinking about it a little more. I keep harping on it but if a leader of a Mt. Everest expedition knew of a specific risk and let one of the people in his party die because he or she did nothing to mitigate the risk then I think they would be negligent. How would they not be? It sounds like you have found a legal way to murder someone. If you are into watching people die then this is a great way to do it, assuming you are right and there is no responsibility on the part of the people who should be responsible. But I don't think that is realistic. I don't think any of us really believe that once a person signs up for a risky endeavor that all bets are off and the leaders have zero responsibility. Do you really believe that? The point is should the so called "experts" have known when the victim had become seriously dehydrated? I can't see how anyone can say no. Given that this is one of the most significant risks if not the most significant risks then the answer has to be yes.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 6th June 2007 at 12:59 AM.

6th June 2007, 12:49 AM	#35
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,932	Originally Posted by Kerberos The issue isn't just that he died, had he been bitten by a rattlesnake and died no one would blame the company, just like we would not blame the Mount Everest guides if one of their costumers feel down and died. The problem is that the guides displayed what seems to me to be, by any reasonable definition, gross neglience. If a person who has been walking in high temperatures without water for hours begin hallucinating, you shouldn't need to be an expert on anything to draw the obvious conclusion, yet these supposed expert guides failed to do so. Good point. Also, the guy lost the ability to see color. There is an elephant in the room and no one wants to address it. What was the emergency water for?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith