Suspended jail for husband that killed wife in avalanche

Being found guilty seems reasonable enough but am not sure on charge as the victim is equally guilty. We have to assume that as a group they made collective decision that conditions were safe, no need for normal protocol of skiing one at a time and only once other person has reached safe area. Given slope held for first person seems had they followed above nothing would of likely happened. Transceiver in bag is just crazy, I turn on when putting on boots and turn off when removing them. For sake of few extra hr of battery anyone relying on remembering to turn on incase they go offpiste is crazy.

As already said tragic, the only positive I can see from the court case is the increase in awareness in safety and knowing your limits. If one person life is saved from increased news then its worth it. No court can punish this man as much as he will be punishing himself.

They were both experienced ski tourers. He had already done 69 tours that season (he had recently retired) and she had done 22. They were skiing a lightly wooded 35 degree slope, the avalanche danger was at level 3. They had both skied the same slope a few weeks previously in the company of the leader of the local mountain rescue, also at level 3.

When he triggered the avalanche she tried to rescue herself by heading into a more thickly wooded area but disappeared in a cloud of snow. She was found under a metre of snow with severe head injuries and a mouth full of snow, after a 2 hour search by the rescue service. They pronounced her dead at the scene.

The court seems to have decided, on the basis of an opinion from an avalanche expert that the husband should have known that the slope might avalanche and should have prevented his wife from skiing it. The fact that her transceiver was switched off and in her rucksack doesn't seem to have been an issue, it wouldn't have saved her anyway.

It would appear that the court decided that the husband was the de facto leader and was therefore responsible for his wife's actions.

The Austrian mountaineering organisations are worried that this conviction could lead to a flood of similar cases.

"Light" sentences seem to be the norm these cases. This is probably because of the differing legal systems, the UK has an adversarial system, whereas mainland European countries have inquisitorial systems, apart from Italy which has a bit of both.

http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/schweizj/publications/Schweizer_Harvey_Legal_consequences_ISSW2006.pdf

Good analysis and conclusions, Swingbeep. Once you add in some actual information, he picture changes.

The views of the"expert witness" are concerning. Also, given your analysis, where was the defence expert witness?

SwingBeep wrote:

It would appear that the court decided that the husband was the de facto leader and was therefore responsible for his wife's actions.

IMHO that is crazy.

35 deg is certainly a pretty steep slope if sustained. Level 3 seems to be almost default setting for resorts these days. You need to see specialist website which have level vs altitude and aspect to have a meaningful number. This sounds like the sort of conviction which means no more school etc ski holidays to Austria. I know Italy has started prosecuting but I think they are being bit more subjective about experience preparation etc with understanding that accidents can still happen even if you're a guide.

Snapzzz wrote:

SwingBeep wrote:

It would appear that the court decided that the husband was the de facto leader and was therefore responsible for his wife's actions.

IMHO that is crazy.

I have been put in this de facto leader position within a group, with me having inferior skiing ability, but superior local knowledge. It's bloody uncomfortable. The people I was with got hissy when I showed them a slope but said I would not go down it because of the time of day (aspect/exposure).

I don't think it's crazy, but commonsense. He had the most experience.

He was the more experienced, he didn't ensure what safety equipment they had was in use, he triggered the avalanche while she was still on the slope.
I can see why they held him responsible, however there has to be an element of personal responsibility here surely? She was experienced enough to know she was acting irresponsibly.

I'm almost scared to ask this, given the bobble brigade on here, but was she wearing a helmet?