Hacker News Reader

Comment by kleiba | Hacker News Reader

I agree, the court's arguments make little sense.

Even if you agree to the point of view that he went on the hike ill-prepared, that does not change the fact that he found himself in a potentially life-threatening situation with no other means to signal for help.

Now, the article also mentioned that he left the fire unattended, and that raises the question whether or not a signal fire could have been done with more care. But that is not at all what the court focuses on.

At the same time, isn't the sum of $300,000 influencing our judgment here? Would we think otherwise about the judgment if the damage were much lower, say, around $1,000?

View on HN

He burned down 230 acres of forest after lighting a tree on fire purposefully and walking away.

Thats extreme recklessness, stupidity, against the law in the first place, and could have endangered the lives of an unknown amount of people hiking on the same trail or in the vicinity.

He took no precautions with the fire and the entire situation happened because of recklessness in the first place.

The sentence is just and appropriate. Frankly probably low considering the amount of work needed to put the fire out.

He saved his life, I think that's worth more than a forest fire. He also likely had no idea it would be so large, especially in his reduced mental state.

He made a mistake, and this sentence is brutish and unjust, and could cause a chilling effect on others who might need to take drastic action to save lives, causing more harm in the end.

Or it may help people realise they should go on hikes more prepared, and if shit happens they should consider going back instead pushing forward like the person did the second day, esp if they somehow think that in the worst case they will light a fire and they will be rescued.

"Now, the article also mentioned that he left the fire unattended, and that raises the question whether or not a signal fire could have been done with more care. But that is not at all what the court focuses on."

Yeah, I'm not saying the court decision is necessarily wrong, but the way they went about it seems wrong. They are focusing too much on stuff that doesn't matter - like a first aid kit.

Yeah, the amount is definitely an influential factor. However, it's probably based on actual cost to put out the fire. I'm not sure what the answer is to balance interests here. Should tax payers just foot the bill anytime someone accidentally starts a fire (reckless? Negligence? Etc too?) or needs to be rescued, or do we need to have personal insurance against these things and what does that cost? I'd say I'm generally against personal insurance for everyday life and definitely against mandated personal insurance for most activities as you can essentially regulate lawful activities out of existence and price out classes of people. A potential fix would be charging a low fee hiking pass that acts similar to insurance to help the governwment cover costs likely to arise from public use. Although I'm sure this has some concerns with use restriction and pricing people out of a public resource as well.

I think the question the court was trying to answer was "did he act negligently?". If he did, he's responsible for the result. That he didn't bring a first aid kit is further evidence that he wasn't prepared for the hike, so I think it's relevant.

Yet it would make no difference in this scenario. He brought a bunch of other equipment, like camping gear and the recommended amount of water for the time he expected to be on a beginner trail. That seems to be equally relevant, if not more so since those are things he actually used.

If the sentence was $1k, and you had to do a "safe hiking PSA", I'd consider that just.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com