 Poster: A snowHead
|
A ski instructor, accused of manslaughter for not having respected his safety obligation towards his clients, has been sentenced to 8 months in prison (suspended) by the court in Nice. On the 4th of February last year, Jean-Alexandre Echene, an experienced and popular ski instructor in the ski resort of Isola 2000, was hired by the Darmon family to guide them on some of the area’s off-piste runs. The avalanche risk was 3/5.
...The instructor took the family to a couloir on the north-west side of the Méné. Mr Echene and Mr Darmon were at the back of the group when they triggered an avalanche. Mr Echene was able to ski out of the slide, but Mr Darmon was buried. He was rescued and airlifted to hospital in a serious condition, where he died later.
See: http://pistehors.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
More health and safety facism. Skiiers knew of the risk, they chose to partake in a "risky" sport. Their gamble did not pay off - tough.
The problem with this ruling is that it sets a precedent that will expand to all aspects of tuition and guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
killian, I'm with you about the general over-intrusiveness of "health and saftety" into all our lives; creating obstacles and undermining individual responsibility
...but...
I think you're wrong here. I only know as much as I've read on the pistehors thread, but it seems to me that:
1. The authorities in France felt there was a case to answer, of sufficient seriousness to warrant a manslaughter charge
2. The court found this instructor guilty on that charge
3. The court imposed a sentence - for manslaughter - of 8 months... suspended!
It is true that all skiers, especially those going off piste, choose to participate in a 'risky' sport, and I would suggest the lightness of the sentence takes due account of this. However, it is wrong for anyone to use the fact that skiing has inherent risk to dismiss death and injury in the mountains with a gallic shrug.
You say the problem with this ruling is that it sets a precedent that will expand to all aspects of tuition and guidance. I hope your prediction is right, but I don't see it as a problem. The ruling has reminded the industry that instructors and guides have a duty of care to their clients, but in the light sentencing it recognises clients share responsibility for their own saftety, and are choosing to accept a degree of risk. It is a good ruling, and hopefully one that people will take to heart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Is the fact that they were taken down a couloir in a 3/5 hazard warning relevant, i.e. normally steep and nowhere to escape (in general). I have not been off piste by was interested in it in Verbier recently and the resort web page had some good simple advice with regard to staying at the edge of areas, steepness, go down one by one, route of escape, north? facing etc, all of which is a bit difficult to do down a couloir, maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
In a layman's view, the family choose to hire a guide before going off-piste indicates they wish to maximize their safety.
It's up to the peer of the guide to decide whether he acted responsibly in leading the family down that couloir when avalanch risk was 3/5. I'm assuming both party presented their side of the story and their supporting theory.
If that's the case, and the court nonetheless reached the conclusion that the guide acted irresponsibly. Then the sentence would be just.
Otherwise, a guide could happily lead any group of thrill seeking clients to whereever they wish to go. And if any thing goes wrong, just shrug his shoulder and say "this is the inherent risk of going off-piste"!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I am not sure I understand here. Is taking a group off-piste with the risk at 3 (e.g. where it's at for much of the winter) criminal negligence?!? On several occassions I've been in groups with ESF instructors where we've been taken off-piste (and without transcievers etc, but on relatively sensible slopes) with the avalanche risk at 3 or 4, so from my experience this is probably fairly common practice.
I'll avoid any temptation to comment on this particular case without any knowledge of the slope, conditions or level of the skiers, but where do you draw a line? What happens if instead it had been a steep moguled piste and someone fell and broke a collar bone. Is that also the instructor/guides fault? What about a busy icy piste down into the valley at the end of the day. In terms of injuries (as opposed to fatalities) I've seen far more people hurt there than off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kamikaze, even if the overall risk is 3, some slopes can still be very dangerous due to local variations in conditions. Most avalanches happen at risk 3, and the reason that we hire guides is to take us to the slopes that we don't know in as safe a manner as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errors of judgement happen in all walks of life but are more likely to be fatal in some. One thing is quite clear though the instructor must have considerd the slope safe as he was prepared to ski it himself. I feel very sorry for both him and the family, on what little we can see of the evidence I think the ruling to be harsh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Reminds me of the climbing mountain guide case a while ago. In that case the choice was between making bomber belays and moving slowly (more risk from weather, stonefall, avalanche, geting caught overnight etc) and moving quickly but unprotected over easier sections. Each carries it's own risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T Bar, he might have been prepared to ski it himself, but did he take all the necessary precautions that are prescribed as a guide with vicarious liabiity for others?. what I am prepared to do on a slope is not necessarily safe, so just because I am prepared to ski a run does not necessarily mean it is safe nor does it make it safe for others. Obviously he crossed the line somewhere because he was found guilty therefore it was probably not just a bit of bad luck. I think more details are required to consider this further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
rayscoops, I'll see if I can find the press articles from the day after the trial finished. The 'facts' and legal arguments seemed very complex. If I can find it I'll translate and post but my immediate reaction at the time was that they were an ill-prepared 'group' and it was all a bit unplanned ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
rayscoops,
I agree that we need more detail to accurately comment on the case. His judgement was clearly innacurate but most of us make errors of judgement and to label someone a criminal to me means the error must have been very gross indeed. Avalanche prediction is notoriously difficult and hus judgement was clearly that the slope was safe as he was prepared to ski it. The outcome is tragic but I am not sure the instructor should be criminalised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
