Manslaughter charges in the death of climber Tito Traversa

Alex Washburne wrote: 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? 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.

The trad climb is an interesting scenario. There are two cases that I could image in which the leader would be considered liable for the accident. 1. If the leader claimed safety certification. 2. In some states (not all) there are laws regarding liability in cases of lending/borrowing equipment--namely cars. If someone borrows a car and gets into an accident for which they are faulted, the owner of the car could also be held liable, even if they weren't in the car at the time of the accident. So I could see an enterprising lawyer trying to argue that the pro was borrowed and, hence, the follower was at fault, but the leader is also liable for an accident. Whether or not this would be successful, I can't say.

Now, whether or not we think that someone should sue is a whole other issue--one that won't ever be settled. Basically, I like to think of the "whose responsibility is it?" question as a sliding scale between "the only person you are responsible for is you" and "we are all responsible for each other all the time." We all have differing opinions about where the climbing community should fall on that scale. Hence there won't ever be a single set of overarching ethics in climbing when it come to liability, which is why, in a civil society, we appeal to the law to interpret where responsibility is placed in specific situations.

One other thing to take into account is that in some cases, the surviving family members may not be climbers themselves (though in this case, they are). So sometimes the people bringing the lawsuits may not understand climbing. I could totally see a non-climber also including the belayer in the lawsuit, for example.

So PRRose is from Colorado, Pat is from California, I'm from New Mexico & New Jersey, and Tito is from Italy and died in France... obviously nitty-gritty details in local law are going to be pertinent in deciding the case. But, regardless the local laws in any locale, I'd like to remind that there are "just and unjust laws" and my point is not to argue the law, but to argue justice with references to the law for sake of discussion, including the more technical terms and concepts such as negligence and duty which are useful for framing this ethical debate.

Your opinion is that people "owe" a standard - any standard (you put emphasis on "gold" where I put emphasis on "standard" - a moot point). I don't believe they do. Provided people are not intentionally trundling rocks in a time and place where people are found downstream, or acting out of malice (cutting anchors, dropping people, etc.), I don't believe there should be any *legal* standards at the crag. I think proper conduct at the crags should be honed by social norms carved out by the whole community, not by lawsuits like this duked out between 2 lawyers and a handful of jury that have lasting repercussions for the rest of us.

The primary reason I'm concerned with this case is that I am the social chair for university's mountaineering club. We're nothing more than a listserv of psyched people - we provide everyone with a listserv that they can use to contact other stoked climbers and get outside (much like MP). We are a "club", and we "take people climbing", including people who are new to climbing, or gym rats who are eager to get outside for their first time. We try earnestly to keep things at the highest standard of safety - when we find people who we believe are unsafe, we advise new climbers to climb with other, more experienced members. By the grace of God, nothing bad has happened (despite thousand of sport and trad and ice and mixed and mountaineering climbing-hours), but suppose something did happen - should we be held legally responsible? Should we students get charges of "manslaughter" on our permanent records because a mistake was made by a member of our "club"? I firmly believe the answer is no - the taste of potential guilt from someone getting injured is potent enough to get us to do our best (which may not be "the best" - a standard, gold, platinum, maximal or minimal or whatever). I'm deeply concerned about the potential for such a ruling to slip down the slope to affecting the liability of these informal "clubs" of a bunch of friends who want to take other friends climbing.

If you believe the answer is "yes, those negligent kids who organized this university mountaineering club and took their friends climbing are criminals because their cams/anchors/ropes/quickdraws were shit", and if precedents of this sort are set (as you guys seem to be advocating, though we don't know the exact nature of this "club" Tito climbed with), then our club would be abolished in a heartbeat because we don't have the money for legal counsel or the proper certifications (despite being the most competent climbers we can, and breeding the most competent climbers we can, always advocating professional instruction over homeboy-advice), and this key feature of climbing culture - the university mountaineering clubs that get young, fit, fun-loving people outdoors and on track to live this life that we all love - would be abolished almost everywhere.

And that's why this is personal (you may call it a conflict of interest, but I think that misses the direction of causation - my belief in the goodness of these clubs got me to partake, and I defend it because it's good, not because I partake), and why I so strongly believe that there should be a clear line - guide/non-guide - that determines whether or not someone owes a duty and can be charged with criminally negligent manslaughter for the misuse of climbing gear (although even then I wouldn't charge the guide if I were the parent, but that's just me - I had a doctor accidentally take out my eardrum when removing a tube that was too large for my ear, leading to a permanent, profound hearing loss that has altered my life and made earning my PhD, not to mention my college degrees, particularly challenging... people make mistakes, and sometimes we have to realize that we got unlucky, even if it's at someone's hand. It just plain sucks - I didn't even try to sue. Suing the doc won't bring my hearing back).

That's why I'm so vocal in my opposition to suing, or defending such suits without care about the repercussions to people who run haphazard clubs that provide climbers with free access to this life-changing sport. And, as the case of my hearing demonstrates, yes, I know how I would act if I were in their shoes. I would take personal responsibility for my actions and have empathy for the people who saw the accident, not make these poor guides/friends/acquaintances suffer any more than they have with eternal guilt knowing that the next best climber died on their trip.

If details emerge about the club charging money, then that changes my own opinion of the legal (but not moral) "right answer", and if there is malice (e.g. a competitor suspected of doing this with intent) then that's where we should start labeling someone as a criminal. Until then, this is a tragedy that we learn from, that we help Tito's family and those present at the scene of the accident recover from, and use as a lesson for parents sending their kids to a "club" that doesn't have certifications. There are no criminals here - only one dead superstar and a bunch of sad and traumatized people who would do anything to change it.

I rest my case (both my moral case, and my case of beer).

Good night to you all - I'm exiting this discussion (feel free to get last words, I'll read them) and opening the floor for more voices.

Alex Washburne wrote:The primary reason I'm concerned with this case is that I am the social chair for university's mountaineering club. We're nothing more than a listserv of psyched people - we provide everyone with a listserv that they can use to contact other stoked climbers and get outside (much like MP). We are a "club", and we "take people climbing", including people who are new to climbing, or gym rats who are eager to get outside for their first time. We try earnestly to keep things at the highest standard of safety - when we find people who we believe are unsafe, we advise new climbers to climb with other, more experienced members. By the grace of God, nothing bad has happened (despite thousand of sport and trad and ice and mixed and mountaineering climbing-hours), but suppose something did happen - should we be held legally responsible? Should we students get charges of "manslaughter" on our permanent records because a mistake was made by a member of our "club"? I firmly believe the answer is no - the taste of potential guilt from someone getting injured is potent enough to get us to do our best.

How informal is this club? Do the people that you take out sign waivers? Are you officially recognized as a student organization at your university? Does the university have any overarching liability statements regarding extra curricular activities that students agree to upon acceptance of admission? All of this would affect your liability. If you take a gander at MP's Terms of Service, you'll see that they've written clauses into their terms that absolve them of liability if someone gives you crappy advice on their forums about anchor building that leads to an accident, for example. So just because this is a relatively informal community, doesn't mean that MP hasn't thought about the need to cover its ass, legally.

Whether or not you think you should be sued in the event of an accident is irrelevant. If you don't spell out where your club's responsibility begins and ends, there is always the possibility that you could get sued in the event of an accident.You may not have sued your doctor, and that was a decision you feel good about. But someone else is absolutely entitled to seek compensation for a lose due to a serious mistake on the part of the doctor. Both reactions are good and perfectly acceptable. Like I said before, in civil society, we resolve disputes like these by debating and interpreting law. And if a law is not just, it gets revised or struck down, but the way our legal system works is that law must be challenged first--which can't happen if there are no lawsuits.

PatCleary wrote: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.

I sell climbing equipment from brands that have been mentioned in this forum discussion, and I can tell you that a prominent global provider of climbing equipment ranging from soft goods, carabineers, & active and passive protection does NOT provide the full disclosure paperwork detailing proper/improper usage & precaution with each piece of equipment. In fact, they will ship orders with many slings or carabineers attached together with only one disclosure of proper/improper use and precaution. I believe they do provide a 'generic assumption of risk' tag on each piece of equipment. (climbing in inherently dangerous...yadda yadda yadda) They may provide full disclosures on their website detailing each components proper use and potential misuses, but I have not bothered to verify this. Does disclosure of proper/improper use away from the point of sale protect these companies from potential liability suits?

Personally, the lack of personal responsibility anymore in the world makes me sad. To suggest anyone should 'hang and sway in the wind,' in this case is just ridiculous. Lets all walk everywhere because the drunkards occasionally drive their trucks and kill people... After all, an eye for an eye leaves us working harder to climb and having a hell of a lot less fun doing so.

I'd go as far as to say that at some point, I think people will appreciate cases like these to some degree; those which may turn 'regular' people off from an activity, leaving only those 'radicals' enticed by the inherent dangers. In a way, I think those people are less likely to sue me...

-Michael

I get it, it was a kid and we are all sad when a kid dies or ends up in a chair for life but sport climbing with rubber bands as protection without ANYONE noticing is in no way manslaughter, it is stupidity.

John Wilder wrote: anyone under 18 doesn't have the legal capacity to check equipment. for the same reason we don't let kids under 18 sign waivers. i love that this is an argument on the internet- a 12 year old kid dies and you guys are shocked and angered that some heads are going to roll? what world do you live in?

They live in a world where personal accountability begins at inception.

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. 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.

While I agree that not everything can be predicted, nor should every possible scenario be laid out in instruction manuals, I'm still a little dumbfounded that it was impossible for Petzl to see this. I look at the situation and it's not only clear to me that this could happen, but it did, in fact, happen something like 8 times in the same accident.

How a Petzl engineer never could have seen this is beyond me, regardless if four firefighters didn't see their accident. The four firefighters were in the moment. Petzl has probably years of testing capabilities before release. But there are people who will try to convince you otherwise that this was impossible to see...and yet it happened.

I don't think Petzl is responsible for the accident. But I think the idea that they couldn't have predicted this is a bit stupid.

GMBurns wrote: The four firefighters were in the moment.

You mean a 'training' moment...

And they weren't petzl draws...

And they were assembled at the cliff by another youngster...

At least take the time to read the article before commenting burns...

Alex Washburne wrote: Your opinion is that people "owe" a standard - any standard (you put emphasis on "gold" where I put emphasis on "standard" - a moot point). I don't believe they do. Provided people are not intentionally trundling rocks in a time and place where people are found downstream, or acting out of malice (cutting anchors, dropping people, etc.), I don't believe there should be any *legal* standards at the crag. I think proper conduct at the crags should be honed by social norms carved out by the whole community, not by lawsuits like this duked out between 2 lawyers and a handful of jury that have lasting repercussions for the rest of us.

These social norms are standards in the end, so yeah, we do owe each other standards. I don't disagree that climbing is generally better off with these social standards as opposed to codified standards, but at the very least codified standards do have a level of protective enforcement that social standards do not.

I'm not saying that manslaughter is appropriate, but sometimes the law does need to get involved, and it seems to me the death of a 12 year-old due to the incompetent assembly of climbing protection is a perfectly appropriate scenario for the law to become involved. If it doesn't get involved in this scenario, when would it?

The Phoenix wrote: You mean a 'training' moment... And they weren't petzl draws... And they were assembled at the cliff by another youngster... At least take the time to read the article before commenting burns...

You hear that? That's the sound of the point going over your head.

GMBurns wrote: I don't think Petzl is responsible for the accident. But I think the idea that they couldn't have predicted this is a bit stupid.

first of all it aint petzl ... they arent based in lombardy italy

second of all ... its "obvious" in retrospect that one can assemble those quickdraws incorrectly ... but its something NO SANE CLIMBER would ever do ... we still dont know who assembled them, was it the young girl who owned the draws, or a non climbing parent, etc ...

again ... in 20+ years of quickdraws we havent had any documented cases of this popping up yet, if someone has one post it up !!!

companies may know a failure is theoretically "possible" but again NO SANE CLIMBER should every use gear in certain ways

for those who want to cut through the bull ... heres what mamumut has to say on the issue

8a.nu/?IncPage=http%3A//8a.…

GMBurns wrote: You hear that? That's the sound of the point going over your head.

Sorry you think I had trouble with it, I didn't. I was thinking about what kind of person would try to interject themselves in a topic without reading the material or really knowing what they were talking about and how stupid they would look after the fact ;-) Heard that?

The Phoenix wrote: Sorry you think I had trouble with it, I didn't. I was thinking about what kind of person would try to interject themselves in a topic without reading the material or really knowing what they were talking about and how stupid they would look after the fact ;-) Heard that?

Agreed. Love that he tried to call you out for missing "the point"... Maybe someday he'll get it

bearbreeder wrote: Tito case:

Can anyone confirm that this was really the setup used in the Tito case? Are you people who are arguing that the manufacturer should bear responsibility all in agreement that this was how the draw was set up?

If so, you're nuts. You may as well say the manufacturer should be responsible if you wrap the rope around your neck rather than through your harness. The manufacturer should not be held responsible for clear and obvious misuse of their equipment. And if the draw was set up as bearbreeder posted, that's exactly what it was.

GO

GabeO wrote: Can anyone confirm that this was really the setup used in the Tito case? Are you people who are arguing that the manufacturer should bear responsibility all in agreement that this was how the draw was set up? If so, you're nuts. You may as well say the manufacturer should be responsible if you wrap the rope around your neck rather than through your harness. The manufacturer should not be held responsible for clear and obvious misuse of their equipment. And if the draw was set up as bearbreeder posted, that's exactly what it was. GO

from 8a.nu ...



This is the quickdraw that the police showed to Tito's father.

8a.nu/?IncPage=http%3A//8a.…

That setup has been described on 8a.nu, dpm.com and grimper ( grimper.com/news-mauvais-mo… ) as the setup that killed Tito Traversa. The pictures showing the string on the bolt clipping carabiner are apparently an inaccurate reproduction intending to show the mistake; the picture showing the string on the rope-clipping biner are exactly how the draws were set up. Hard to believe that a competent adult would make a mistake like that unless they were tired or impaired, but the exact same mistake was made in the USFS accident described upthread.

Got it. And other articles on DPM and elsewhere confirm it. That's complete misuse of equipment, plain and simple.

Tragic, but simple.

GO

mark felber wrote:That setup has been described on 8a.nu, dpm.com and grimper ( grimper.com/news-mauvais-mo… ) as the setup that killed Tito Traversa. The pictures showing the string on the bolt clipping carabiner are apparently an inaccurate reproduction intending to show the mistake; the picture showing the string on the rope-clipping biner are exactly how the draws were set up. Hard to believe that a competent adult would make a mistake like that unless they were tired or impaired, but the exact same mistake was made in the USFS accident described upthread.

just as a point to the USFS report ... i posted that for people to read so they can understand who ANYONE can fail checks if they dont know what to look for ...

the big difference between the 2 cases is that the firefighters set up their raps in stressful environment ... a loud shaking moving heli ...

no one realistically should be assembling draws under anything close to such circumstances ... and definitely not 8 of them in a row in error

the other thing that everybody is missing is that FOUR of the draws were assembled correctly ... how can one person assemble 4 draws the right way and another 8 the wrong way? ... and any sane adult not correct them if he/she realizes that they were doing it wrong?

according to the original report the draws were purchased by the mother of a young girl ... IMO the possibility that the young girl herself assembled the draw, or someone who is not a climber at all needs to be considered ... or multiple people assembled the draws

grimper.com/news-tito-trave…

ultimately its all speculation until the actual facts slowly come out ...

Would an adult climber have been more likely to spot the mistake as he/she led the climb and clipped the bolts? I suspect that a 12 year old would simply assume that the adult who assembled and/or gave him the draws knew what he/she was doing. Also, would a trad climber be more likely to spot the badly assembled draws as he/she used them than a sport climber? So much of trad climbing involves evaluating gear and placements as you go, and treating fixed gear (pins and bolts) as possibly suspect. I wonder if constantly evaluating gear this way doesn't create a little better awareness of potential hazards.

If this is THE actual QD then it has some mileage on it.