Manslaughter charges in the death of climber Tito Traversa

A few pieces of information:

• The trip was organized by the "Bside Climbing School," which appears to be a regualr commercial organization, with a climbing gym, courses, and a team participating in youth competitions.
• It is not clear from the original article in "La Repubblica" whether the quickdraws were new or just the rings.
• Tito's father pressed charges in Italy. The prosecutor then had to start an investigation. It is my understanding that if you are being investigated in Italy for certain charges, they have to notify you. If the article is accurate, the manufacturer, seller, organizer, and instructors have been notified, but not charged yet.
• European law concerning CE certification for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) includes rules about the instructions. I believe quickdraws are class III PPEs, which is the class with the most stringent regulations. While my understanding is that certification affords a certain level of protection from liability suits, it also appears that if a product is shown not to conform, then the protection is gone. It's likely that one goal of the investigation is to ascertain whether the instructions were conforming to the pertinent regulations.
• However, further search indicated that the rings themselves may not be subject to the same regulations as the quickdraws.

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?

I'm well aware of the material. There was nothing that I said that was out of line.

bearbreeder has been saying that this event is similar to the one that happened to the firefighters (he's said that multiple times on this thread and on the rc.com thread). He has stated that this is an event that no one could have discovered in advance (including petzl) because even when four people check gear "blindness" can occur and result in an accident (as what happened with the firefighters). I agree with him that blindness does happen and may very well have happened with Traversa. His example is a good one for "in the moment" circumstances.

However, I disagree with him that Petzl never knew about this possibility. They likely had a very long time to think about possible errors - in fact, I would have a hard time believing it's not a part of their job to find mistakes like this. Them updating their manuals after the accident is irrelevant in my mind. I believe their engineers knew about it but didn't think it would ever happen and thus never included it in the original material.

Not sure where you missed my point, but ^^ that should spell it out for you.

PatCleary wrote:If we make a product can kind of go together, fail, and injure a customer, we'd (rightfully) be liable. A quick draw that can be assembled without the carabiner going through the dogbone while seeming to be assembled properly is improperly designed.

Pat is correct. I practiced in the products liability field for a couple of years before moving on to other areas of practice. Climbing is understandably a dangerous past time. Manufacturers need to be aware of possible, foreseeable misuses of their product. This idea can be exploited to the nth degree, but certain examples are more evident than others. To use a real example, if you design a chainsaw but place a hole near the handle where a person could accidentally insert their thumb and get it chewed off, you've designed a faulty product. Arguably, the dogbones here could fit within the same category of product.

The policy behind the injured party being able to sue anyone in the chain of commerce is that the courts don't want the injured party to have to invest the difficulty and cost of finding the responsible party. You round them all up and figure out who the liable party is.

BTW, I don't see a manslaughter charge as a sane alternative to 'money grubbing'. It's far force. Money is just that; you're personal freedom and liberty, not to mention the stigma of a criminal conviction, and worth infinitely more.

Society can point fingers of blame all day long.
What's important here is to raise awareness so this tragedy is never repeated.

Would a blaze orange or brilliant yellow rubber keeper on the draws have made it easier to identify a mis-application?

IMO the black rubber keeper blends in too well for mis-use to be identified correctly.

Condolences to the family

GMBurns wrote: bearbreeder has been saying that this event is similar to the one that happened to the firefighters (he's said that multiple times on this thread and on the rc.com thread). He has stated that this is an event that no one could have discovered in advance (including petzl) because even when four people check gear "blindness" can occur and result in an accident (as what happened with the firefighters). I agree with him that blindness does happen and may very well have happened with Traversa. His example is a good one for "in the moment" circumstances. However, I disagree with him that Petzl never knew about this possibility. They likely had a very long time to think about possible errors - in fact, I would have a hard time believing it's not a part of their job to find mistakes like this. Them updating their manuals after the accident is irrelevant in my mind. I believe their engineers knew about it but didn't think it would ever happen and thus never included it in the original material. Not sure where you missed my point, but ^^ that should spell it out for you.

no i am saying that the manufacturer did not REASONABLY believe any SANE person would assemble the draws in that way .... especially 8 of them in a row

NO ONE REASONABLY "foresaw" that any SANE climber would deliberately assemble such the quickdraws in such a way and then climb on them ... if you showed that photo to ANY climber they would be horrified

hell i can clip the elastic band drop seat on my harness for belays or tie into it .... theres a reason why most manufactures dont warn not to do that ... because one doesnt reasonably foresees any SANE climber doing this, it should be self evident

again there has not been an accident with this particular quickdraw failure that we know of in climbing history ... if someone has more cases, please come forward

and btw ... its not petzl gear in the accident

IMO the black rubber keeper blends in too well for mis-use to be identified correctly. - tomorectum(us)

WHAT! Use your brain man! That's a bunch of crap that you can't figure out how the thing is put together just because it's not in Gay-Glo fancy colors!

The mis-application is glaringly obvious to me, and I would guess that it would be equally obvious to any adult climber who took reasonably good care of his gear. It's probably not nearly as obvious to a 12 year old or a non-climbing parent (which, AIUI, is who assembled the draws). Better awareness and stricter controls over who handles the kid's gear for youth programs like this one are probably a more effective way to prevent a repeat of this episode.

Regarding the Forest Service accident (and to some extent, this one), would a physical "pull test" on the gear be any more reliable than a visual inspection?

mark felber wrote: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.

the danger is in assuming you or i, or anyone else would have spotted it better because of this or that ...

if you dont know what to look for, things are VERY hard to spot

the biggest "benefit" of this sad accident?

- now people know what to look for
- we now know that someone will put together a quickdraw in such a way then proceed to climb on it ... where before no one would reasonably think any sane climber would do

and for those that are really honest

- we know that its damn hard to spot problems when we dont know what to look for

only the arrogant will believe "i would have done better" with absolute certainty ...

SavageMarmot wrote:IMO the black rubber keeper blends in too well for mis-use to be identified correctly. - tomorectum(us) WHAT! Use your brain man! That's a bunch of crap that you can't figure out how the thing is put together just because it's not in Gay-Glo fancy colors!

Is resorting to name calling really necessary here?
Someone obviously didn't figure out how the draw should've been assembled and a bright young life was erased as a result.
My observation was meant toward prevention of this type of accident in the future, not to stir up homophobia.
What would you suggest?

GMBurns wrote: However, I disagree with him that Petzl never knew about this possibility. They likely had a very long time to think about possible errors - in fact, I would have a hard time believing it's not a part of their job to find mistakes like this. Them updating their manuals after the accident is irrelevant in my mind.

First, since you seem so unclear on it, Petzl is not involved. Please quit blaming their engineers.

Frankly, how the draws got through so many hands assembled like this is beyond me. It's the responsibility of every hand they touched before he climbed on them.

To ruin 5 more lives in a case where guilt is already going to riddle them is horrible. This case is unprecedented and hopefully it will save lives by making people aware.

cjon3s wrote: First, since you seem so unclear on it, Petzl is not involved. Please quit blaming their engineers. Frankly, how the draws got through so many hands assembled like this is beyond me. It's the responsibility of every hand they touched before he climbed on them. To ruin 5 more lives in a case where guilt is already going to riddle them is horrible. This case is unprecedented and hopefully it will save lives by making people aware.

I never blamed any engineers. In fact, I explicitly said I didn't think it was their fault, nor did / do I think it was their job to explain everything that could go wrong with a product (and I said that, too). I was pretty clear about that.

I just thought it was stupid that anyone could have thought this wasn't a known problem. For me, it's so blatantly obvious that of course the manufacturer could have seen the problem. If they didn't, then they weren't doing their jobs very well.

It's also a mistake so blatantly obvious that it actually happened. Just because it hadn't apparently happened in the past doesn't mean it wasn't known, doesn't mean it wasn't thought of, doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened, etc.

OK, no sane climber would have done this intentionally. Of course not, but no sane climber would also fail to finish his or her knot either, and yet it happens. My point all along is that regardless of whether you think the manufacturer is at fault or if this is complete, utter, senseless misuse of the product, this was not one of the deepest mysteries of humankind and completely unknown. The potential that this could have happened is pretty obvious. Throw in a group of kids and possibly some uneducated adults and...

In my opinion it makes perfect sense for the authorities to get involved. Either you have some sort of unsupervised incompetency that resulted in someone's death or you have something more malicious. When a kid dies as a result of something like this, it simply makes sense to investigate.

GMBurns wrote: I'm well aware of the material.... He has stated that this is an event that no one could have discovered in advance (including petzl).....However, I disagree with him that Petzl never knew about this possibility. They likely had a very long time to think about possible errors - in fact, I would have a hard time believing it's not a part of their job to find mistakes like this. Them updating their manuals after the accident is irrelevant in my mind. I believe their engineers knew about it but didn't think it would ever happen and thus never included it in the original material. Not sure where you missed my point, but ^^ that should spell it out for you.

Dude WHAT are you smoking??? Can I get some cause it must be some good shit! How many times do people have to tell you the accident has nothing to do with Petzl draws or petzl rubber holders... you CLEARLY aren't aware of the facts.

And your points about petzl are irrelevant because they have designed a rubber holder that cannot be misapplied like these ones so, they have thought about it. Further from that we're talking about a physiological condition that can occur called confirmational bias and blindness which have been well document AND discussed in the articles you HAVEN'T comprehended yet.

Pull your head out of the sand Burns! It's okay to admit ur wrong and actually read the articles...

Were the two draws correctly assembled the same kind of draw as the 8 incorrectly assembled ones, or did the climber have 8 new draws assembled incorrectly an two older draws?

This has come up in this post and it seams like some of you are assuming someone got it right 20 percent of the time.

It's all pointless to argue b/c it is the odd Italian judicial system that maleate call.

My two cents for the parents and future parents on this forum: just because your kid climbs harder than you doesn't mean they are more responsible than you. They don't have the same level of objective reasoning as an adult. Parents must watch over their children.

Dmb, yes Tito was 12 years old, but that in no way implies that he is not responsible for his personal safety while participating in a deadly sport. He knew the dangers, he knew the proper way to assemble a QuickDraw(open slings included) and ultimately he failed to perform the most basic of safety protocols and inspect your gear before you leave the ground. He made one of many mistakes a climber can make and paid the ultimate price. No one, and I mean NO ONE is responsible for Titos death other then himself. He decided to use that equipment, he decided to climb that route, and he decided that a simple safety check of BORROWED GEAR wasn't worth the time and effort. Stop trying to blame other people for an obvious stupid mistake by a world class climber. It doesn't matter if he used a rubber chicken as his quick draw. He assumes liability by placing that gear and clipping his rope into it.

chefMatt wrote:Dmb, yes Tito was 12 years old, but that in no way implies that he is not responsible for his personal safety while participating in a deadly sport. He knew the dangers, he knew the proper way to assemble a QuickDraw(open slings included) and ultimately he failed to perform the most basic of safety protocols and inspect your gear before you leave the ground. He made one of many mistakes a climber can make and paid the ultimate price. No one, and I mean NO ONE is responsible for Titos death other then himself. He decided to use that equipment, he decided to climb that route, and he decided that a simple safety check of BORROWED GEAR wasn't worth the time and effort. Stop trying to blame other people for an obvious stupid mistake by a world class climber. It doesn't matter if he used a rubber chicken as his quick draw. He assumes liability by placing that gear and clipping his rope into it.

He is 12 years old. Would you trust a 12 year old to drive a car? own a gun? vote/ smoke cigarettes? no? Then he is not responsible for his own actions.

^^^
I agree. My daughter, who is 9, has started climbing for the local gym kids team and, despite the limited instruction she gets at the gym, I bug her to no end making sure she is following through and double checking her systems and does not assume that everything has been rigged correctly. So, while I try to educate her about how she is ultimately responsible for her own safety, does that mean that she is capable of making those decisions by herself? Absolutely not. She's 9. Tito was only 12. And while he pulled down hard, let's not mistake technical ability for maturity and good judgment.

Jake Jones wrote:I respectfully disagree chef. I work with kids in a climbing capacity, and I have a daughter as well. A 12 year old is capable of checking gear, yes. Should climbing prowess correlate to overall safe practices? One would think so, but this isn't always the case, as Slim pointed out. I'm wondering; do you have kids? If your 12 year old (or 10 year old, or 14 year old) kid died at a rock gym because their harness wasn't doubled back, and a gym employee was belaying them, would you simply chalk it up to "oh well, my kid should have known better"? If so, when is the cut off? Are they not responsible for grasping the gravity of their complacence, or even being aware that they are being complacent at say, age 5? 8? 11? At what age would you hold an adult and paid professional (paid to keep kids safe and uninjured from purely preventable accidents) responsible? If you take your car and pay to get the oil changed, and they don't put the plug back in and your motor seizes up, are you going to blame yourself? I mean, after all, you have a driver's license, it's your car, you know how to drive it, and you're aware that there is a drain plug and that it needs to be installed correctly in order to retain the oil and keep the engine lubricated and running, right? You should have checked it. Blame rests solely on you, right? Or perhaps does a little bit of it rest on the paid professional who failed to perform his or her paid rendered service correctly, and as a result has left you with a significant loss?

I agree that MOST children are rarely responsible for their constant safety, however, most children don't willfully put their lives at risk by climbing extremely deadly routes. I was 12 years old when I took my first avalanche awareness course and knew very clearly my backcounty activities could result in my death. I understood this risk and assumed the responsibilities that came with my choices. As did Tito.

Also your oil change comparison is fundamentally flawed. Its more like Tito changed the oil in his own car and forgot to put the oil plug back in himself.

That being said I do not want to come off as rude towards a tragic loss. No one deserves to die doing what they love and obviously at least one or two other people should have also checked Titos safety equipment. It is not a criminal offense though and we all have the same chance if not greater of meeting the same end Tito did while participating in this deadly sport.

Fat Dad wrote:^^^ I agree. My daughter, who is 9, has started climbing for the local gym kids team and, despite the limited instruction she gets at the gym, I bug her to no end making sure she is following through and double checking her systems and does not assume that everything has been rigged correctly. So, while I try to educate her about how she is ultimately responsible for her own safety, does that mean that she is capable of making those decisions by herself? Absolutely not. She's 9. Tito was only 12. And while he pulled down hard, let's not mistake technical ability for maturity and good judgment.

Sounds like your child is not ready to climb yet then to me. None of us(or at least I) would ever climb with an adult partner that is incapable of being responsible for their own safety. Why would you make this exception for a child??

Of course now im sure I will get plenty of flack for this from all of you parents with kids.

This wasn't an alpine route. He wasn't leading on ice. In the context of climbing, I don't think a well bolted/protected sport route can be construed as "extremely deadly".

You are right this one was not extremely deadly but he has ticked off many climbs that would fall under this category and was doing so on a more and more regular basis.

I do agree that the guides in the group also share a large portion of responsibility.

chefMatt wrote: Sounds like your child is not ready to climb yet then to me. None of us(or at least I) would ever climb with an adult partner that is incapable of being responsible for their own safety. Why would you make this exception for a child?? Of course now im sure I will get plenty of flack for this from all of you parents with kids.

how would anybody ever learn to climb if this was the golden rule? everybody is a beginner at some point, and usually goes out with somebody who is looking out for them.