No criminal charges in Mt Hood accident?!

[jules]

WTF? What kind of criminal charges would they have been able to bring? I don't get it..... web page

[iain]

I saw that. involuntary manslaughter for failure to self-arrest?? your guess is as good as mine.

[Terminal_Gravity]

Frankly, if somebody's actions cause injury or death of another the question of leagal culpibility is apropriate.

 

If somebody that does not know how to drive or is incapable runs over innocent bystanders at a bus stop there is leagle responsibility if it can be shown that they knew they couldn't drive. This has happened in Florida with old people losing there faculties as they get older and driving anyway..and killing people.

 

I am not saying that the people on Hood that precipitated the accident were so inexperienced and stupid for being there that they should be charged. I don't know, but some of the postings on this board suggested that they were way to inexperienced. (that is saying it lightly) That being said, I am not sure I would want a leagal precident like this being set.

 

But I, for one, don't like gumbies above me adding to my subjective exposure and I feel that when stupid actions kill people there should be some consequences for the perpetrators.

[MountainMan]

Well said TG.

[iain]

Your point is well-taken but it is my opinion that in the mountains, people have to watch out for themselves. Climbers must accept and account for all associated hazards, be it falling rocks, falling temperatures, or falling people. It is up to you and your team to weigh constantly all of these hazards. I don't climb routes when people could knock rocks down on me and I stay the hell off the south side of hood as much as possible, particularly during the peak season.

[Terminal_Gravity]

I agree with you iain. That mirrors my thoughts as well. I should have said that I would NOT want a precedent set. I can imagine, however, where gross negligence in the mountains could create a triable case. I expect it has happened, but I tend not to pay attention to such crap and just try to have a good time and climb.

 

BTW, I've climbed the south side regular route on Hood a few times during peak season and have had the summit to myself. I just make sure I'm back down to the top of Palmer by 2:00 am at the latest.

 

PS Thanks for the support, Mountainman...I knew My post would not be popular.

 

[ 08-13-2002, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Terminal Gravity ]

[russki82]

if you ask me, this goes not only for mountaineering but for life in general. Over the past decade, this idea of suing everyone and everything each time something happens to you has been slowly but surely destroying the whole concept of responsibility for one's actions. It's society degrading itself...and to see this in the climbing world is even more depressing

[iain]

TG: it's great to see the look on peoples' faces when you wander back into the parking lot in the dark to head home as they set out bleary-eyed to fill out that registration card.

[jules]

Hmmm... so, TG, you're saying the liability would rest on the climbers who were inexperienced (even if they were the ones who died). I guess I see your point, but I agree with Iain about being responsible and realizing that less experienced climbers are part of the risk. Definitely agree with you about not wanting to see the setting of a precedent like that. I really don't see how they could assign blame based on experience level:

the law: "we are holding you responsible for the deaths of those other climbers because you are inexperienced and you know it. What made you think you could climb that route/mtn/conditions given that you are so inexperienced?"

inexperienced climbers: "we thought it would be OK/how else are we going to gain experience?/lots of other people do it, some of 'em in running shoes and Levi's."

[glen]

TG: I think that your post is well written.

 

Let's follow how this might play out though... In a court, it would seem that there would have to be some sort of way of determination of judgement and/or experience of the climbers. What criteria do you use? Does a person who is a clear thinker and naturally able and has climbed a fair amount on their own less 'certifiable' as experienced than a person who has graduated from a WAC or Mounties course? This seems to promote a slippery slope towards regulation in the face of mounting liability.

On the other hand, personal responsibility is a vague concept that means something slighty different to each person. It could be said that climbers below were personally responsible for evalulating the hazard of climing in the fall line of those above. It could also mean that the climbers above should have been aware of the consequences to others of a fall by their party. Does personal responsibilitty to others end at the end of your rope team? Is an 'every man(woman) for themself' credo appropriate either?

 

I wasn't there and because of that, I just simply don't know about the particulars of the incident. I have no real opinion on culpability here because I don't know. I do think that blanket statements about liability, culpability and the like are difficult to make about the mountain environment. I also think that they make the mountains conducive to regulation, which I don't think is good.

 

Laws don't stop at NFS boundaries, so lawyers and law enforcement have equal access to lawsuits in the mountains and in cities.

[Attitude]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jules:

WTF? What kind of criminal charges would they have been able to bring? I don't get it.....

web page

---

I'll point out the obvious...

 

...people died not of natural causes. The police are required to investigate. Think suicide, lovers quarrel, partner imbeds ice axe into ropeleaders head because he bought the wrong flavor of Gu, psychotic side effects of Diamox, Caveman trundling rocks from above (with aggression! ), etc.

[ryland_moore]

I agree with everyone's posts here so far, but I also feel that the guys below the climbers that fell showed just as much inexperience as those that actually started the snowball effect. If you are in the fall line of other parties or travelling so close to another party that you could smell a fart from another rope team, then that shows plain disregard to the potential hazards that can occur. I feel that all parties who went into the shrund could be blamed or found neglegent. It just sucks that a precedent could be set just because family members who are not in the know act in a litigious manner and want someone else to face reprocussions for their loved one's actions. Problem with the human race - never facing up to one's mistakes. We suck.

[Alpine_Tom]

So, who’s fault is it, really? Is it the fault of the gumby who fell, because he didn’t know anything about self-arrest and had never used crampons? Or is it the fault of his buddy who brought him along and was an experienced climber and thought this route would be a good place to learn? (assuming that’s the scenario.)

Or was it one of the folks on the rope below who was pulling, or someone above who stepped on the rope and made gumby loose his balance? Or was there some guide there, yelling at the people descending to hurry up, because his clients wanted to get up?

 

It seems, particularly in light of the constant discussion of “charge the climbers for the rescues” that you want to be pretty careful about assigning blame, particularly criminal charges.

 

Wasn’t there a case about ten or fifteen years ago, about a guy on Rainier who left his buddy in a crevasse, and was charged with manslaughter? Anyone remember, or is this just my fertile imagination?

[Dru]

did he cut the rope with a pocket knife? cuz that was on Siula Grande not Rainier

[Roger]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ryland moore:

I agree with everyone's posts here so far, but I also feel that the guys below the climbers that fell showed just as much inexperience as those that actually started the snowball effect. ... I feel that all parties who went into the shrund could be blamed or found neglegent.

---

Can't agree with you there. Just for clarification - the rope team from TVFR (the firefighter/paramedic group) was slightly above the 'schrund when the first team fell from the chute area, maybe 200-250 feet higher on the mountain. The whole TVFR rope team ended up in the schrund, but all survived. I'm not sure that their rope leader was even aware that there were people descending that far above them - and even if he was, I wouldn't blame him for being in the wrong part of the fall line when a tangled mass of six bodies and two ropes came flying down the hill.

[Peter_Puget]

One thing about climbing accidents in general is that the vast majority of them in hindsight look stupid and that even the best/most cautious of us are not immune to such "stupid" errors. There are several problems that I can see result from this.

 

1. We look at others accidents and think "how stupid that won't happen to me."

2. There is a possibility that an outside group (jury of our peers, insurance companies)might view such accidents as truly a sign of incompetence.

[ryland_moore]

Or maybe we learn from those accidents and are more aware and cautious in looking out for getting into situations like these. That is how I look at "Accidents in NA Mountaineering" and that is how I look at this one, whether a stupid mistake was made or not.

[E-rock]

Suppose that the Gumby had survived.

 

And suppose that the Gumby was sued, or charged with a criminal offense.

 

What has the climbing community or society-at-large gained from this outcome? What have the hypothetical victim's families gained from this outcome?

 

Personal responsibility is just this: You live with your mistakes and you change because of them.

I don't think that climbing mistakes, regardless of how fatal, are sociopathic behavior that needs to be eliminated through laws and litigation.

 

Winter, sorry about the avatar, guess I'll change it.

[Peter_Puget]

Good way to view it Ryland.

 

A "speed" climbing team passes a my partner on the the E Buttress of Middle Cathedral and in their haste pulls off a rock killing my partner. What's their responsibility to the dead climber. Morally? Legally?

 

I am climbing the same route and a team above tired and speeding because they misjudged the route length pulls a rock off and kills my partner.

 

Same route middle of the day and a rock is pulled off by me and my partner dies.

 

By the way I believe that a legal battle did ensue over rockfall on this very route.

[Winter]

quote:

---

Originally posted by E-rock:

Winter, sorry about the avatar, guess I'll change it.

---

I actually look like that so watch out.

[Dru]

was threre not a case about 6-7 yrs ago in Montana when 3 climbers who trundled rocks down a steep face on Granite Mountain to "clean new routes" killed a party climbing on the face and were tried for manslaughter?

[mattp]

It is commonly suggested that our litigious society rewards greedy trial lawyers and discourages personal responsibility, and some of the commentary here seems to reflect that view (russki stated this outright, but I believe this view underlies some of the other comments). While I cannot argue with the idea that a plaintiff's attorney who hopes to take a third of a large award may be rewarded for filing suit in a case where most of us would believe his or her own client should bear the brunt of the blame, but overlooked is the fact that if the ladies and gentlemen of the jury share this view (that the client was to blame or otherwise does not deserve compensation), the plaintiff's attorney is not going to receive his or her fee. And I should point out that our civil system not only seeks to punish the irresponsibile (e.g. McDonalds who serves coffee so hot that they know it will burn somebody or the drunk driver who kills an innocent child) but also to redistribute the loss (the lost income and enjoyment of life suffered by the injured party is quantified and this amount is paid by the irresponsible party). Everybody hates trial lawyers until they or their family member gets hurt. Then they hate the fact that the trial lawyer wants to be paid, and they expect that the lawyer can front the costs of pursuing a lawsuit (in some cases tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars) without the prospect of a large monetary reward.

 

In the case of mountain climbing, I would venture a guess that the trundler or the irresponsible bumbler who falls and injures another person is not likely to be sued over those injuries unless it was a truly outrageous accident because the natural defense to such a suit is that the injured party was engaging in a dangerous activity wherein rockfall triggered by another party or the active falling of another party can and should be anticipated. But what if a guy was to go to the top of the Sunshine Wall, on a Saturday in the Spring, and started trundling boulders without looking to see if there were parties below? Shouldn't that person be held responsible if in so doing, that person accidentally injured somebody? What if the injured person was not going to be able to work again -- should they be condemned to live on social security disability for the rest of their life while the trundler goes on their merry way and keeps all of their income for the rest of their life? Our criminal laws wouldn't address this issue – a charge of wreckless endangerment or assault or something might land the trundler in jail for a few months but as far as taking care of the victim, it's a civil matter.

[Bug]

A few years ago some folks were trundling boulders somewhere in Glacier or Yellowstone Park, can't remember which. Anyway, they killed a guy. They didn't know he was there. They were taken to court and convicted on some kind of manslaughter charge. I do not remember the sentence or any other details.

How does this precedent bear on the scenarios mentioned above? Or does it at all. There seem to be some legal beagles out there. Fire away.

[Alpine_Tom]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bug:

A few years ago some folks were trundling boulders somewhere in Glacier or Yellowstone Park, can't remember which. Anyway, they killed a guy. They didn't know he was there.

---

It's a shame "Accidents in NA Mountaineering" isn't available on line.

My recollection on that was that it was a snow plow, which regularly plowed snow off the road at this location. Big chunks of snow went trundling down the slope, and folks were coming up on an infrequently climbed route, and were killed. I think.

[russki82]

um, people...HELLO?!

 

sad as it is, getting killed because of someone else's mistake IS ALSO A PART OF CLIMBING! It's a risk we take just like any other, it's an objective danger that we must deal with exactly the same was that we must deal with avalanches, rockfall and bad weather. Are you gonna sue God because you were unlucky enough to get hit on the head with a rock or piece of ice (it's happened to be before...)? That's about how absurd suing people for "causing" someone else's death or injury is...