‘The costs could rise’: Austria manslaughter ruling could alter climbing in Europe | Mountaineering

The Austrian court’s decision to convict an amateur mountaineer of manslaughter for leaving his girlfriend to die on an Alpine peak in winter is sure to be closely scrutinized throughout Europe.

In his decision in Innsbruck, judge Norbert Hofer, a mountaineer and expert in Austrian law on Austrian mountains, ruled that the “galactic” disparity in experience and skill between Thomas P and his late girlfriend Kerstin G meant that she had effectively acted as his mountain guide “as a favour”, although no financial arrangements had been made.

This case attracted global media attention to the fact that it could set a precedent for the climbers and climbers involved in the accident. The decision is expected to be appealed.

Although in many jurisdictions professional mountain guides belong to certified organizations and can be held legally liable in serious cases and for adults alike operating with minors, Hofer’s decision suggests a new and potentially complex duty of care: between more experienced and novice participants in mountain sports.

At the heart of the case were Thomas P’s errors in judgment, including his decision to climb a high-altitude, snow-and-rock mix route on the 3,798-metre (12,461 ft) Großglockner in poor weather conditions with inadequate safety equipment, as well as his failure to return below the summit late at night when it would have been safe to do so.

The prosecution’s claim, which was partially accepted by the judge, was that Thomas P made nine separate mistakes; The most serious of these was to take Kerstin G on a climb, despite her inexperience and the fact that she had never done a mountain tour of this length, difficulty and altitude, and despite the harsh winter conditions.

The court heard Thomas P left his girlfriend alone in the open and continued on alone, apparently believing he could get help from a hut on the other side of the mountain. He had refused the offer of help from the rescue helicopter sent to see if they needed help.

“You were not convicted because [the] better [climber]Hofer told Thomas P that this was because he had met the threshold of what the court believed was “guidance arising from civility” and the duties it entailed: “You have not fulfilled the leadership responsibilities you have assumed as required by law.”

Whether Hofer’s decision will have a broader impact will depend on how it is viewed in different jurisdictions with different attitudes towards regulation in the mountains, including how police investigate fatal crashes.

In an interview with Austria’s Kurier newspaperAndreas Ermacora, former president of the Austrian Alpine Club, a major European provider of mountaineering insurance, was skeptical that the decision would have a major impact. “I don’t think so because every story is so unique. [But] Ermacora, a lawyer who represents professional guides involved in accidents, said: “It is perhaps groundbreaking that someone has been convicted as an unqualified guide for the first time in Austria.”

“The important point was that it was clear that she would never go up there alone. For such a complex ice and rock climb in the winter, you really have to know what you’re getting into. And I don’t think she ever knew that. On the other hand, she had been up there a few times before. She handed over the responsibility to him.”

But this gets complicated; The main way many aspiring climbers gain skills is through the mentorship of more experienced partners.

“One of the things that struck me was the difference in experience between the two,” said John Cousins, a British mountain guide and managing director of Mountain Training, which runs training programs for mountain activities.

“We’re all on a continuum of experience. If someone is an absolute novice, one can just look at them. But once you get further along that continuum, in my opinion as a mountain guide, it definitely becomes a negotiation. You want to constantly check in with the other person to see how things are going for them.”

Checks will include whether the less experienced person is still in their comfort zone and whether they feel out of their depth even if the more experienced climber says they are not. The latter issue came to the fore in the news surrounding Kerstin G’s death last year and in the case itself.

“I can’t think of a precedent,” Cousins ​​said. “But I also don’t believe anyone goes into the mountains thinking of protection in case of an accident.”

As Severin Glaser, professor of criminal law at the University of Innsbruck, points out, some observers suggest that where this might have an impact is in whether some amateur climbers might feel uneasy about being seen as responsible for a less experienced companion.

“If you’re doing something dangerous, that could change your liability,” he said. he told the New York Times. “The cost of mountaineering, the cost of expressing your freedom, may increase, and perhaps some people may no longer be willing to pay that high price.”

The final problem that is obvious to climbers is the sometimes complex issues of climbing partnerships, a situation in which need for approval or vulnerability dynamics may come into play, regardless of gender.

This is, incidentally, a topic discussed in the current issue of the journal. climbing magazine Climber Alice Hafer has told why she decided not to climb with her “other significant other” after a frustrating climb. “I looked back at situations like this and found that I often delegated my decisions to my partner and avoided empowering myself towards my own goals. Climbing, a place where I usually thrive, was tainted by the context of a relationship.”