Manslaughter charges in the death of climber Tito Traversa

PRRose wrote: There is no reasonable climber who would consider the quickdraws that killed Tito to be safe, so the fact that different climbers might judge other kinds of anchors to be less than desirable is irrelevant. The legal question does not turn on whether anyone knew specifically that the draws were unsafe. Someone can be liable for acting carelessly or negligently. This is an Italian issue, so I don't know exactly what legal standards apply, but liability could potentially attach for: -assembling the draws without having the requisite knowledge or training; -providing guides or trip leaders who were not adequately trained or supervised -selling the strings without instructions (particularly if there were forseeable ways to misuse them); -manufacturing the strings in a way that allowed them to be misused in a forseeable manner if there was a way to manufacture them that did not allow them to be misused.

exactly ... you DONT KNOW

what we DO know is that basically NO ONE foresaw this specific type of accident in the past 20+ years of quickdraws ...

if they did they would be jumping out of the woodwork right now with documentation and quotes ...

its only after the fact that everything becomes "obvious" on the intrawebs

bearbreeder wrote: exactly ... you DONT KNOW what we DO know is that basically NO ONE foresaw this specific type of accident in the past 20+ years of quickdraws ... if they did they would be jumping out of the woodwork right now with documentation and quotes ... its only after the fact that everything becomes "obvious" on the intrawebs

You've posted several times regarding a nearly identical failure in a rappel setup. I think it also happened at RRG last year.

Found this link in a post made March 8th on R&I's site: ukclimbing.com/videos/play.…

Not exactly the same deal, but it'd have gotten me thinking.

PRRose wrote: You've posted several times regarding a nearly identical failure in a rappel setup. I think it also happened at RRG last year.

the NEW RG was a different cause ... it was a failure on an OPEN sling, not an incorrectly assembled quickdraw on a dogbone ... UKClimbing tried to push the theory that its the same when they lacked real information ...

but anyone who looks at it will see the difference, in the tito case the draws were assembled incorrectly from the ground ... in the NRG case the strings where put in a way that didnt cause failure unless the biners rotated out

tito case



NRG case



as to firefighting ... how many people here read up on firefighting and their techniques/accidents? .... and how many will connect a failure on rappel out of a heli to the failure of 8 quick draws in a sport climbing crag?

if you said you would ... im calling you a bit overconfident in your deductive abilities ...

you will also notice in USFS report i posted that FOUR TRAINED FIREFIGHTERS FAILED THEIR CHECKS ....

rather than blame ... the report seeks to explains the reasons why ... it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to spot things that are not expected in checks ...

PETZL, which has some damn good documentation, did not update theirs with the new failure scenario till AFTER the tito accident

PatCleary wrote:Found this link in a post made March 8th on R&I's site: ukclimbing.com/videos/play.… Not exactly the same deal, but it'd have gotten me thinking.

thats NOT the same failure ... petzl wrote up that failure in their documentation ...

you can see my original post 3 years ago in the reviews here at the bottom ... you can see how chris mac edited his review the day after i posted up the comment

outdoorgearlab.com/Climbing…

even they didnt conceive of the tito failure till after the fact

UKclimbing was running around sprouting off that EXACT video you posted right after the tito accident because they couldnt think of a quickdraw being assembled the way it was found out to be ...

ie ... no one really got it right on the intrawebs

bearbreeder wrote: the NEW RG was a different cause ... it was a failure on an OPEN sling, not an incorrectly assembled quickdraw on a dogbone ... UKClimbing tried to push the theory that its the same when they lacked real information ... but anyone who looks at it will see the difference, in the tito case the draws were assembled incorrectly from the ground ... in the RRG case the strings where put in a way that didnt cause failure unless the biners rotated out tito case NRG case as to firefighting ... how many people here read up on firefighting and their techniques/accidents? .... and how many will connect a failure on rappel out of a heli to the failure of 8 quick draws in a sport climbing crag? if you said you would ... im calling you a bit overconfident in your deductive abilities ... you will also notice in USFS report i posted that FOUR TRAINED FIREFIGHTERS FAILED THEIR CHECKS .... rather than blame ... the report seeks to explains the reasons why ... it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to spot things that are not expected in checks ... PETZL, which has some damn good documentation, did not update theirs with the new failure scenario till AFTER the tito accident

It is not my, yours, or the firefighter's deductive abilities that are at issue--it's the manufacturer's.

As my post made clear, forseeability may be an element (at least in the US; European standards might be different). So why are you jumping all over me? I haven't expressed any opinion about whether this particular misuse was forseeable.

PRRose wrote: It is not my, yours, or the firefighter's deductive abilities that are at issue--it's the manufacturer's.

because it HAS to be forseeable ...

otherwise its just an accident

the failure is in believing that failures that you have never seen or hear of before can be predicted and prevented ... even with "checks" if you dont know what to look for

I'm curious, what's your profession? Because you're debating the corner of law and engineering with an engineer and (I believe) a lawyer. This isn't some theoretical idea to me, I fill out paperwork on this pretty routinely. When we release new products we go through them part by part, sometimes feature by feature on those parts, to determine if anything can result in a product failure. Out of curiosity I reviewed some of our forms, used for radically different product, and I'd be surprised if they wouldn't identify this as an issue.

I'm aware that the video is a different issue. However, the root cause (where you start when identifying problems) is that the rubber keeper can attach the carabiner to a dogbone without providing protection. You then look at all the ways that the situation can arise, not just the one way that's been presented.

Also, corporations are responsible for issues they didn't foresee. It's a far bigger problem if you did and didn't address them, but you're responsible if your product hurts someone.

PatCleary wrote:I'm curious, what's your profession? This isn't some theoretical idea to me, I fill out paperwork on this pretty routinely. When we release new products we go through them part by part, sometimes feature by feature on those parts, to determine if anything can result in a product failure. Out of curiosity I reviewed some of our forms, used for radically different product, and I'd be surprised if they wouldn't identify this as an issue. I'm aware that the video is a different issue. However, the root cause (where you start when identifying problems) is that the rubber keeper can attach the carabiner to a dogbone without providing protection. You then look at all the ways that the situation can arise, not just the one way that's been presented. Also, corporations are responsible for issues they didn't foresee. It's a far bigger problem if you did and didn't address them, but you're responsible if your product hurts someone.

im a climbing bum that has climbed more or less every day for the past few years ... well until i pulled my achilles in june =P

the "root" causes are not the same ... one is the installation of the rubber keepers in a way that no sane climber has installed them for the last 2 decades ...

the second is the installation of that elastic in a way that people used to use elastic bands or tapes for, and still do ... in this case the failure was known at least to some people, but the knowledge was likely not widespread

you can see steph davis does this with her cam slings



you simply cant predict, or expect to predict every possible type of failure of a product ... it can be misused in so many ways

heres a personal example ... i havent seen ANY PAS/slings/daisies come with warning on NOT to clip the girth hitch to belay on when you put em through the tie in loop ...

this is something so obvious (like not depending on rubber keepers for lead falls) that manufacturers generally cant conceive or dont bother posting up something so stupid

years ago, i clipped into my fcukang PAS girth hitch to belay someone ... we both checked and double checked each other and "passed", and were both "careful" climbers ... he got 8 feet up or so before i called him down after "feeling" something was wrong ...

if i had been less paranoid ... it would have ended really badly

i didnt go out and blame any manufacturer or retailers ... it was simply a failure mode i had never considered, or even heard of from any books, or documentation ... or on the intrawebs (and i absolutely LUUUUV those PAS/daisy intraweb wars) ....

and its not on any BD daisy, metolius PAS, etc documentation ....

you cant fix stupid, and that day we were both stupid ... and tired, and near dusk

The Company cant be held liable. So if I forget to double back my harness I can sue BD for releasing a product that can cause injury or death if improperly used? I wouldnt think so... Hold the guides and people directly in contact with him responsible, only to some degree...since the kid couldve checked the gear on his own.

Interesting debate. For me, it's hard to say who's at fault since we don't know the details of the story, and I still don't know who the manufacturer of the draws was. Does anyone know who it is?

As for the gear we climb on and liability--I believe that that Yvon Chouinard sold Chouinard Equipment (now BD) because of the huge risk and liability selling climbing equipment incurred, and focused instead on growing Patagonia, where the risk was minimal. They say that the most of the cost of a cam goes towards the company's insurance against suits just like this one.

So regardless of who's at fault, I just felt the cost of my quickdraws go up by $5 when news of this suit hit the media outlets.

RockinOut wrote:So if I forget to double back my harness I can sue BD for releasing a product that can cause injury or death if improperly used? I wouldnt think so... Hold the guides and people directly in contact with him responsible, only to some degree...since the kid couldve checked the gear on his own.

If BD doesn't include instructions on proper usage of the harness and doesn't include safety warnings for misuse of the product, then yes--you could sue them. That is why they have those instructions attached to the harness (and quickdraws, cams, 'biners, etc.). Once you remove those instruction from the product you are essentially removing BD's legal responsibility for misuse of the product. Note that this is really only misuse (something that's the fault of the user--like failure to double back). This wouldn't include manufacturing defects--you could still sue if it's found that, though you used the harness correctly, the stitching was faulty and it caused the harness to fail.

The company of the rubber stopper is being accused of not providing the proper documentation for using the product and/or for a lack of safety warnings. That would be fair game for a lawsuit here in the US. We'll see if it holds up under Italian law.

So, do I have to provide the original instructions with used gear sales?

MP is an accomplice for offering the venue (for sale forum) for those sales and is complicit also?

Matt N wrote:So, do I have to provide the original instructions with used gear sales? MP is an accomplice for offering the venue (for sale forum) for those sales and is complicit also?

Those are actually really good questions. I very much doubt that MP would be held accountable (and I think that's the weak spot in the charges filed in the case at hand).

The issue with liability in buying and selling used gear privately (and interactions on MP would be considered private sales) would probably vary state to state. As long as the gear is clearly marked used or "as is", I don't see where the seller would be held accountable. I think most US courts would place the burden of inspecting and verifying the safety of used gear on the buyer not the seller.

Like if the breaks fail on a used car, you couldn't go after the seller for liability (though you might if there's a lemon law in your state). You could go after an auto company if it was a new car, though. Driving is a little different, though, because we have licensing laws in place that insure you know how to use the car before you drive it.

Since climbing doesn't have a licensing system that gets the companies out of liability, they have to provide adequate instruction for use of their products. If you read through the safety labels that come on climbing equipment, they all say something like "here is how you should and shouldn't use this product. Climbing is dangerous. Don't do it if you aren't sure what you're doing. If you're still unclear on it, get schooled by someone certified to teach climbing." This gets them out of hot water if you misuse their products.

PatCleary wrote:I'm curious, what's your profession? Because you're debating the corner of law and engineering with an engineer and (I believe) a lawyer.

If you're referring to PRRose as a lawyer, then that's just funny. The dude did not even recite the keywords for "criminally negligent manslaughter" and "duty" that some non-lawyer (but a self-taught mathematician) like myself could see are at the heart of this case with only 3 minutes of google info-grabs.

PRRose, like bearbreeder here, are citizens in the climbing community debating ethics. The law will be determined in some esoteric court, but how we vote for what our society collectively allows is being carved out, and quite frankly I'm 100% on bearbreeder's side here.

No, I do not believe I legally owe a duty to not let them climb on a crappy rope or crappy anchors. This is where we have to respectfully disagree - I believe that the burden of responsibility lies on the person tying into the rope (or the parent letting their kid tie into the rope with _____'s supervision), and not on the owner of the rope or the person who set up the anchors or quick-draws or what have you. Even if the court decides that person A of some haphazard "club" is responsible, then I would disagree with the court's interpretation of the law. I believe duty is owed only when someone establishes themselves as a professional who performs their services for some monetary compensation.

If the parents paid the club to take care of their kid, then the club is absolutely responsible. However, if we start saying that people who were not paid are responsible for negligence (a highly subjective term - I don't call this negligence, with my imagination of how it all went down, I call this tragic), then we will be opening the floodgates for liability suits in climbing that will strip this sport of its greatness and turn it into another f***ed up liability minefield, as many people here are pointing out.

If I meet up with someone on MP and they suck at belaying/building anchors/etc., is MP liable? Do I have grounds for a lawsuit? The instant we start entertaining these questions is the instant we lose one of the greatest things about climbing - the ability to take personal responsibility for the management of our own risks, in what we decide to climb, how we decide to climb it, and who we decide to climb it with. I am forever opposed to the imposition of duty on anybody with a rope at a crag, and 100% against the use of criminally negligent manslaughter in tragic climbing accidents like this. This is what we mean by personal responsibility - sometimes shit really REALLY sucks, like in the death of Tito, but the correct response is not to blame it on somebody else. The correct response is for the parents to accept that they put their kids in the hands of someone they shouldn't have trusted. If Tito survived, the correct response would be to take personal responsibility for not checking the quickdraws.

Do we start to sue for 1/4 inch bolts that break? Or how about pitons/fixed pieces that pull? If not those pieces of fixed gear, then why are we suing for the improper placement of previously "fixed" quickdraws, unless they were placed by someone who claimed to be a professional and received some monetary compensation for the act?

No offense, being against something doesn't make it law. There have been a lot of post where people talk about what they hope the law is, rather than what it actually is. My responses are based on my actual knowledge of risk management and product liability. There may be significant differences between my field (we're FDA registered and kind of medical) and the climbing field, but I haven't found a whole lot to support that.

As to PRRose, all I know is that he was referred to as a lawyer in a post from a couple of years ago, and uses language that's similar to lawyers I know.

The used gear question is an interesting one. It's well outside of my legal knowledge, so this is based on some fast research. It looks like generally sellers outside of the supply chain aren't held to strict liability.

That said if you've done something to the product, you've entered into the supply chain and may be liable. I know used car dealerships fall under this. If they inspect a car and find something wrong with it, they're responsible to repair it. I'm not sure how this would apply to used gear that you've had reslung, etc.

Honestly I don't know the legal rational for excusing MP. However, I suspect that it is so far outside the supply chain (as long as they don't inappropriately pitch used goods) as to be free from liability.

I'd love a review of this by a lawyer if any happen to be reading through

Also, the last, and biggest case against Chouinard Equipment was in fact a harness that was't doubled back. Not sure of the final outcome, but Yvon closed the company to protect Patagonia.

PatCleary wrote:The used gear question is an interesting one. It's well outside of my legal knowledge, so this is based on some fast research.

Another question: suppose this were not a sport climb but a trad climb, and Tito tried to lead it with the gear pre-placed by a previous leader, on lead or on rappel, whatever, but the person who placed the last n pieces placed a bunch of shitty cams and one shitty 3-piece anchor (shitty due to the shitty nuts its made out of). Tito leads the climb and the cams pull and he dies. Tragic. Is person who led the climb and placed the cams criminally negligent?

PatCleary wrote:I'd love a review of this by a lawyer if any happen to be reading through

There's a lawyer on each side of every case, so I don't think you'd find the kind of eternal closure you're looking for (especially not the likes of which we find in engineering and mathematics). This is very much an ethics issue, and this debate is very constructive - there's no objective right and wrong, but these cases and thought experiments we conjure up can help us collectively decide the ethics of climbing. Duty, negligence... these are legal terms masking the gut feeling we have about whether or not someone really did something wrong and, most importantly, should be punished.

I don't think anybody should be punished for this tragic incident (unless the club charged money to "babysit" Tito), because I believe the only people who owe a duty to provide a gold-standard of safety for a day of climbing are certified mountain guides. You want to send your kids out with someone you don't know but still trust, due to their excellence and liability? Find somebody with the stamp of "AMGA" and you'll be all set.

Alex Washburne wrote: If you're referring to PRRose as a lawyer, then that's just funny. The dude did not even recite the keywords for "criminally negligent manslaughter" and "duty" that some non-lawyer (but a self-taught mathematician) like myself could see are at the heart of this case with only 3 minutes of google info-grabs.

Manslaughter--as defined by Colorado statute, for example--is recklessly causing the death of another person. That requires some unpacking as to what is meant by "recklessly causing." That's where parts (ii) and (iii) of the definition I provided come in.

The common law definition of involuntary manslaughter is to negligently cause the death of an other person--a lower standard than recklessly causing the death.

Colorado has a completely different statutory definition of "criminally negligent homicide"--causing the death of another person by conduct amounting to criminal negligence. It is a separate offense from manslaughter.

You'll note that although there is are crimes of "manslaughter" and "criminally negligent homicide", there is no such crime as "criminally negligent manslaughter," at least in Colorado.

As for "duty," you made the claim that "I personally believe that random climbers at the crag do not have a legal 'duty' to provide you the highest standard of safety." That is not a legal conclusion; it is merely your opinion. But it's also irrelevant. The duty to prevent harm (or maybe warn about it) does not arise because you owe the "highest standard" but is because you owe the lowest standard--which, in the case of a threadbare rope on a bad anchor, is probably to prevent someone from risking their life in an unsafe situation of your own making (or at least to warn them before they hop on your rope.

Alex Washburne wrote: I don't think anybody should be punished for this tragic incident (unless the club charged money to "babysit" Tito), because I believe the only people who owe a duty to provide a gold-standard of safety for a day of climbing are certified mountain guides. You want to send your kids out with someone you don't know but still trust, due to their excellence and liability? Find somebody with the stamp of "AMGA" and you'll be all set.

As pointed out above, you are confused. No one is claiming that Tito was owed a "duty to provide a gold-standard of safety." He was owed a minimum standard, which includes not being handed rubber bands to climb on.

The only party I'm comfortable commenting on is the original manufacturer, who failed to identify and warn about a possible safety issue.

There is an argument for assumption of risk. This is where I become a little less sure about things, as it's not a defense in my field. Assumption of risk requires the injured party to knowingly expose him or herself to a risk. Falling on a quickdraw is certainly a known risk. However, receiving an improperly assembled quickdraw, that appears to be correctly assembled may or may not be considered a known risk.

I don't know about the preplaced gear issue, I'm not a lawyer. I have some suspicions, but that's all they are. However, if the nut failed because the cable wasn't made correctly then the manufacturer would certainly be at fault.

All of this is within the context of US law (and even that varies state to state). My lack of Italian skills make it somewhat more complicated.