andymol2 wrote: And the public good of the prosecution was?
I don't know if its part of an Austrian public prosecutor's remit to take this into account but, the general public are not keen on rescuers being put at what they see as unnecessary risk and an increasing number want action taken against negligent mountaineers and skiers.
Tragic error of judgement on behalf of both of them but prosecuting won't have helped either of them or their families one jot.
There were several errors:
1. They didn't read the avalanche bulletin.
2. They weren't using their transceivers (his decision).
3. He set off before she had reached a point of safety.
Not familiar with Austrian law but surely this would have been dealt with more appropriately by their equivalent of an inquest.
AFAIK the UK and Ireland are the only countries in Europe that hold inquests. In other European countries the public prosecutors investigate suspicious deaths. They are required to investigate the incriminating and exculpating circumstances with equal care.
Prosecution might have been more appropriate if they had injured others skiing on piste beneath them.
I don't see what difference it makes.
John987 wrote: In Austria is the medical doctor the same as a pathologist, find it strange they medical field disagreeing in court
I found another article that gives some further information about the doctors roles and the official cause of death.
The doctor called by the prosecution was a "Sprengelarzt" (the literal translation is district doctor) they seem to have responsibilities similar to those of a medical officer in the UK, controlling epidemics etc. They are also responsible for the determination of cause of death and the issuing of death certificates. The actual determination is carried out by a "Totenbeschauarzt" literally a doctor who examines the dead, if they are uncertain about the cause of death they will request an autopsy. In this case an autopsy wasn't carried out. The doctors called by the defence were emergency doctors (probably the ones involved in the rescue) they might not have been qualified to determine cause of death, which might be why their opinion that a broken neck was the cause of death was rejected by both courts. So the official cause of death was recorded as asphyxiation. Asphyxiation is the cause of death in about 85% of avalanche fatalities.
According to Dr. Stefan Beulke a lawyer (he is also a mountain guide and ski instructor) who specialises in mountaineering and skiing accidents, the concept of collective responsibility is a theoretical ideal. In practice there is nearly always an actual or de facto leader. This guy admitted in court that it was his decision not to use their transceivers, he didn't say we discussed it and we decided they weren't necessary. This decision reduced his wife's chances of survival (if she did die of asphyxiation) to virtually nil, as far as I can see that was negligent. If they had been using their transceivers I doubt that he would have even been charged.
Its becoming increasingly clear that the mountains are no longer out of reach of the law, up until recently these accidents weren't thoroughly investigated, there simply wasn't enough manpower. The Austrians now have specially trained police whose primary function is to help with mountain rescues and carry out follow up investigations.
