## Facts

- The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, responsible for search-and-rescue operations, conducted a rescue of Edward Bacon, a 59-year-old hiker, in the White Mountains.
- Bacon had significant orthopedic and medical issues, including an artificial hip that had dislocated five times (twice in the prior year), a back condition, and multiple medications.
- Bacon undertook a five-day solo hike planning to climb peaks over 5,000 feet, including the Franconia Ridge area.
- While on the trail, Bacon encountered a waist-high rock ledge and attempted to traverse it by jumping backward onto the ledge; he fell and dislocated his hip.
- A conservation officer later found Bacon with his leg flexed and internally rotated, a position his orthopedic surgeon had warned him to avoid because of his hip replacement.
- Approximately 15 Department personnel and 35 volunteers participated in the rescue.
- The Department sought reimbursement under RSA 206:26-bb for search-and-rescue costs; after a bench trial, the circuit court found Bacon negligent and awarded $9,334.86 in reasonable costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Bacon acted negligently “in requiring” a search-and-rescue response under RSA 206:26-bb.
2. Whether the Department proved and the court properly awarded $9,334.86 as “reasonable costs” recoverable under RSA 206:26-bb.

## Decision

- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the Department.
- The court held that RSA 206:26-bb creates a civil cause of action allowing the Department to recover reasonable search-and-rescue costs when a person’s ordinary negligence requires the response.
- The evidence permitted the trial court to find Bacon failed to use reasonable care given his known medical limitations and warnings, and that his negligent conduct required the rescue.
- The court upheld the $9,334.86 award as supported by sufficient evidence of reasonableness and recoverable costs under the statute.
- Any trial-court reference suggesting a “gross deviation” standard was treated as harmless because the finding satisfied at least ordinary civil negligence.

## Legal Principles

- RSA 206:26-bb authorizes the Department to recover the reasonable costs of a search-and-rescue operation from a person whose negligent conduct required the operation.
- The statute applies ordinary civil negligence; it does not require proof of recklessness, intent, or subjective foresight of rescue.
- Negligence may be based on decisions to undertake and conduct a hike in light of known physical limitations and medical advice, not only on the immediate misstep causing injury.
- “Requiring” a search-and-rescue response is satisfied when the person’s negligent conduct materially contributes to the circumstances necessitating rescue.
- Reasonable costs recoverable under the statute may include documented operational expenses such as overtime, mileage, and related personnel costs, so long as the overall amount is supported by evidence and found reasonable.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed civil liability and a $9,334.86 cost award against a rescued hiker, holding that RSA 206:26-bb permits reimbursement when ordinary negligence—assessed objectively and in light of known medical limitations—requires a search-and-rescue response and the Department proves the reasonableness of its costs.


N.H. Fish & Game Dep't v. Bacon, 167 N.H. 591, 116 A.3d 1060 (N.H. 2015)