Suspended jail for husband that killed wife in avalanche

I found the information I posted yesterday on the Austrian TV news website. I have since found some further and probably more reliable info on the Salzburg area mountain rescue service website.

They say she was buried under 1/2 a metre of snow and not 1 metre.

The court did take into account the effect that they weren't wearing and didn't have their transceivers switched on had on the outcome. If they had used them he should have been able to find her in about 10 to 15 minutes and she might have lived. The doctor called by the prosecution (the Salzburg district medical officer) said she died of asphyxiation, the two emergency doctors called by the defence said she broke her neck. The judges preferred the medical officer's evidence. There was also the unnecessary endangerment of the rescue team, the rescue involved 35 rescuers, 4 rescue dogs with handlers, the Alpinpolizei and two helicopters. Rescues aren't free in Austria, maybe his insurance will now decline to pay for this one.

During the proceedings he said that he hadn't read the avalanche bulletin for that day, which warned about dangerous amounts of wind driven snow on leeward slopes. He also said that his wife had always trusted him, this presumably means that she was not part of the decision making process.

His defence lawyer is also the vice president of the Austrian Alpine Club, the defence avalanche expert seems to have been a local rescue leader, he said that snow transport was not evident. I get the impression that the judges thought that the relationships were a bit too cosy.

To secure a conviction in these cases I think the prosecution has to prove negligence, this is normally very difficult, it now seems to me that there was ample evidence especially when you take into account that he had been ski touring for 27 years. The transceiver saga beggars belief.

Ski tourers often don't wear helmets as they spend most of their time trudging up hill.

andyhull wrote: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?

Do helmets stop avalanches happening, helmets give protection for head impact, an avalanche causes whole body compression & you would normally die of suffocation in what would feel like a concrete tomb so no help in an avalanche situation.You asked for it & now you've got it.Oh & a bobble useless as well :shock:

Sorry hadn't read Swingbeeps post before replying to Andy :oops:

And the public good of the prosecution was?

Tragic error of judgement on behalf of both of them but prosecuting won't have helped either of them or their families one jot.
Not familiar with Austrian law but surely this would have been dealt with more appropriately by their equivalent of an inquest.

Prosecution might have been more appropriate if they had injured others skiing on piste beneath them.

In Austria is the medical doctor the same as a pathologist, find it strange they medical field disagreeing in court

If she had a head injury and her mouth was full of snow I guess it's possible to argue either could have killed her. Not sure whether the defence were arguing that she died from the head injury or that she would have died from it however quickly she was found.

The fact that she wasn't wearing the transceiver (and it was indeed her choice) didn't play big role in her death, but it seems the fact that her husband started skiing before she cleared the slope did. Responsibility would have been hers if it was she who set off the avalanche, but it was her husband who did it while she was below him. General rule is to avoid sking the slope when you are putting at risk third parties. This court ruling seems to be very important as it stresses the fact that decision making should not be affecting third parties, and as she was below him technically she was the third party. Yes, they were skiing together but it's not that he got a heavy sentence. I am sure her responsibility and participation in the flawed decision making were duly taken into account; but acquitting the man would have been totally wrong and could create a very dangerous precedent. This is the public good from this case. Think of those below you when in avalanche terrain.

andyhull wrote:If she had a head injury and her mouth was full of snow I guess it's possible to argue either could have killed her. Not sure whether the defence were arguing that she died from the head injury or that she would have died from it however quickly she was found.

The info on here said her neck was broken, I don't class that as a head injury & wearing a helmet will not prevent your neck from breaking. I'm saying this as you seem to consider the wearing or not of a helmet as a contributing factor, which IMO is not relevant.