December 3, 2001
11:28 AM   Subscribe

In October 2000, in the mountains of Utah, three-year-old Gage Wayment wandered away from his father's truck and died of exposure. In July 2001, his father, Paul Wayment, was due to begin serving a 30-day jail sentence for negligent homicide. Instead, he killed himself in the area where his son was found.

Now, Paul Wayment's parents have filed two million-dollar claims against the search and rescue teams alleging that had they "conducted an appropriate and proper search," the boy and his father would still be alive.

It appears the search teams are protected by the Utah Good Samaritan Act, unless they can be shown to have been grossly negligent, but this lawsuit may still have a chilling effect on future search-and-rescue operations.
posted by mr_crash_davis (29 comments total)
 
MetaTalk
posted by ZachsMind at 11:40 AM on December 3, 2001


Every time I hear of something like this, I get closer and closer to advocating a national scapegoat that people could blame and bring to court instead of ruining the legal code with idiotic legal precedents.
posted by Hildago at 11:49 AM on December 3, 2001


I nominate Paul Reubens...
posted by websavvy at 11:58 AM on December 3, 2001


Perhaps a jury could find a basis for ruling that the search for the boy was negligent. But blame the searchers for the negligent father's subsequent decision to kill himself?

Another reminder that there is no senseless, terrible human tragedy that lawyers cannot make worse. Most medical ethics boards say that plastic surgeons should refuse to amputate a healthy limb for purely aestheic reasons. Should not also an ethical attorney refuse to file a claim that can only succeed in inflaming the community against a family that has already lost so much?
posted by sacre_bleu at 12:00 PM on December 3, 2001


It's an insane lawsuit. The family is obviously grief stricken about the loss of their son and grandson, but I can't say I'm surprised there's a lawyer out there that probably told this family how they could feel better, after filing a suit.

The child was three, and wandering around in snow with minimal clothes on. The best search and rescue team in the world probably could not have found the boy alive. I'd be surprised if a highly experienced mt. resuce team could have found the boy that day.

I love what this says about the continued trend of personal-responsibility decline in the US. The child is dead not because of any fault on the part of the father, but it's entirely the fault of the failed search and rescue team.
posted by mathowie at 12:04 PM on December 3, 2001


Easier answer: inject the plaintiffs and their lawyers with a lethal poison that will kill in twenty-four hours. Drop them in the backwoods, telling them that you've put the antidote in a backpack somewhere in the forest.

...they have twenty-four hours to find it or die. If they find it, they get to live and they get 2 mil.
posted by aramaic at 12:06 PM on December 3, 2001


So what happens if no search team had searched for the boy? Then you sue the state for negligence? Either way, this is one of those lawsuits that make me sick.
posted by jmd82 at 12:10 PM on December 3, 2001


Disgusting.

I could appreciate a call from the family for a public enquiry into the S&R operation, if they felt it was badly managed.
This is purely a money-making attempt, it can only do harm to others who need S&R in the future.

When I read the first article I thought "what kind of jerk leaves a two-year old alone in the cold for 45 minutes while he looks for something to kill?".
Then it became clear- someone raised by jerks like these.
posted by Catch at 12:10 PM on December 3, 2001


Easier answer: inject the plaintiffs and their lawyers with a lethal poison that will kill in twenty-four hours.

I'd like to offer a slightly less modest proposal. Attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits should be liable for costs. Not the plaintiff, the attorney. That's the only way to solve the problem. As long as "frivolous" is defined reasonably, this should not have a chilling effect on legitimate lawsuits.

Also, keep in mind that this is a single example. We don't know what it says about the frequency of crackpot lawsuits in general.
posted by anapestic at 12:14 PM on December 3, 2001


I just decided to actually read the post, and i think maybe the parents should be sued for negligence is raising their kid to one day become a parent. Leaving a two year old kid in a truck with a t-shirt and PJ's for 45 minutes is negligance. How can you expect a kid to sit there for 45 minutes? I know i still couldn't sit there for 45 minutes.
posted by jmd82 at 12:16 PM on December 3, 2001


More links to articles on Gage Wayment at Rinokids.com, a net resource for missing persons.
posted by Catch at 12:20 PM on December 3, 2001


jmd82: In July 2001, his father, Paul Wayment, was due to begin serving a 30-day jail sentence for negligent homicide. Is that good enough?
posted by esch at 12:45 PM on December 3, 2001


I remember when this story was first reported -- they said the boy was asleep when his father left him. I suspect that's probably true -- most kids get kindah upset if someone tries to leave them alone in a car, and many fall asleep in the car, too.
posted by mattpfeff at 1:01 PM on December 3, 2001


esch:

IMO, that is good enough. He was doomed to live his life knowing that due to his actions, his son had died. I doubt he killed himself over a 30 day sentence. Seems to me the guy was being eaten by guilt and grief.

As for the family law suit, it's sad and pathetic. Hopefully it won't get too far.
posted by mccreath at 1:05 PM on December 3, 2001


It's all sad and Paul Wayment made the tragic mistake that lead to his own suicide. I wonder, although it doesn't excuse his actions, if he was hunting because he didn't have the money to buy food for his child. So much information is not clear. Babysitters, neighbors, friends could have helped him.

Suing the S&R team - I think it's really misguided and the case should be dismissed. Let's hope it doesn't get too far.
posted by Red58 at 1:08 PM on December 3, 2001


Every time I hear of something like this, I get closer and closer to advocating a national scapegoat that people could blame and bring to court instead of ruining the legal code with idiotic legal precedents.

That's a principle of extreme programming, according to a primer I read on one of IBM's web sites. An official scapegoat is picked, and that person automatically gets the blame for any problems that arise in the development of a software project, circumventing the normal assignment of blame that is an integral part of most working environments.
posted by rcade at 1:10 PM on December 3, 2001


One of the first principles of the US legal system is that anybody can file a complaint about anything. Complaints, without more, mean nothing in terms of "precedent" or the "legal code."

The fallacy in "crazy lawsuit" stories is the idea that complaints mean something more than just one person's argument about why they should get something. They don't.
posted by Mid at 1:26 PM on December 3, 2001


esch-> point taken.
posted by jmd82 at 2:00 PM on December 3, 2001


rcade: does this system actually work? Is it something IBM actually does frequently? It seems to me psychologically that people will privately assign blame, even if there is an official scapegoat.
posted by Charmian at 2:04 PM on December 3, 2001


The other issues aside, I think it is pretty messed up that they were going to jail the man.
posted by thirteen at 3:33 PM on December 3, 2001


ENAJ.
posted by holloway at 3:55 PM on December 3, 2001


I think (but don't have the time to search) that there was a pretty widespread belief that the guy may have intentionally left the kid to die. The kid's body was found pretty far from the pickup truck he was supposedly sleeping in.

I don't know how all this speculation turned out, but it may have been a factor in charging and convicting dad.
posted by Mid at 4:11 PM on December 3, 2001


the fact that Utah even needs the "good samaritan law" is just sick.
posted by signal at 4:42 PM on December 3, 2001


I guess I was under the impression that all states had Good Samaritan laws... Weren't they originally designed to help protect first responders and people like that who weren't covered by an insurance blanket like a doctors in a hospital would be?
posted by esch at 5:22 PM on December 3, 2001


Yes, all states have Good Samaritan laws, but they vary widely. Although I don't pretend to be an expert. The only time I've ever really thought about them was when they were discussed in a CPR class in middle school. I recall they told us that if you say, break someone's ribs while trying to save their life by giving CPR, you're protected from being sued -- as long as you don't later accept any gifts on behalf of the person you helped. This was in Texas. I have no idea if that law has changed since, or even what the laws are like in the state where I currently live.
posted by Potsy at 5:58 PM on December 3, 2001


esch: Good Samaritan laws also protect medical personnel (nurses, physicians, etc.) from being sued if they render aid outside of their professional setting i.e. a traffic accident or on an in-flight airplane. Malpractice insurance covers events that occur in the usual or customary place of business.
posted by sillygit at 6:02 PM on December 3, 2001


This is a story which is just plain sad on so many levels that you hardly know where to begin. Like somebody remarked, it's hard to know what motivated Wayment to go hunting that day, but who the hell takes a two (as it was originally reported) or three year old kid out to the wilderness and leaves them untended in a vehicle? Even if the Wayment pantry was completely empty, you sort of have to wonder why he would take the kid with him?

I guess you can understand the absolute devastation of Wayment's parents. They had just lost their son and his son in a tragic string of events. But, you have to reserve a large amount of disgust for the bottom feeding attorney who took a case like this one on.
posted by MAYORBOB at 8:22 PM on December 3, 2001


I don't see how a complaint that has not progressed to any legal action yet is news. I think the only reason these kind of stories get publicity is to push tort reform to limit your right to sue thereby leaving you with little power against large corporations that you might have legitimate claims against.
posted by ArkIlloid at 11:39 PM on December 3, 2001


Charmian: I'm not sure how well it works, but it sounds like a great way to keep a team from automatically going into cover-your-ass mode when problems arise.
posted by rcade at 5:56 AM on December 4, 2001


« Older What will people auction-off next?   |   Captioning Stories Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments