Avalanche survivor may be charged

[karrie]

B.C. avalanche survivor could be charged: police

Updated Thu. Jan. 3 2008 2:36 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
RCMP in Whistler, B.C. say criminal charges could be laid against a 21-year-old snowboarder who survived an avalanche that killed a 29-year-old skier on New Year's Day.
Both men were swept over a cliff by a wall of snow in a permanently-closed area above the West Bowl on Whistler Mountain named "Hanging Roll."
The 29-year-old skier, identified by police as Curtis Green of Whistler, was killed and the snowboarder, also from Whistler, was badly injured. The identity of the 21-year-old man has not been released.
Police believe the men may have triggered the avalanche, which took place in a remote area away from the groomed hills of British Columbia's popular resorts.
RCMP Staff Sgt. Steve LeClair told CTV British Columbia that police are considering charges against the survivor.
"In an instant like this, we would potentially look at criminal negligence causing death," LeClair said.
"If other people had been injured by a slide that had come into the inbounds area of the hill, we would certainly look at criminal negligence causing injury."
LeClair said police are not trying to send a message by considering charges against the snowboarder.
"You can liken it a drunk driving accident. If someone is driving a car and they kill their friend, they still get charged," he told CTV Newsnet on Thursday.
Doug Forseth, Whistler Blackcomb's senior vice-president of operations, told CTV British Columbia that the fatal avalanche was preventable.
"We do find it very frustrating that there is needless tragedy like this," he said.
"The loss of life in this case was very unnecessary and I'm sure if somebody could go back and make that decision over, they would make a very different decision today."
In 2001, two skiers were swept over the exact same cliff in a similar incident, LeClair said.
"It was almost an identical situation to what happened here, except in that case, fortunately nobody died," he said.
Whistler officials had hoped previous accidents would have been a deterrent for people seeking thrills off the tourist route. Local snow-sport enthusiasts at the resort said the news of the skier's death was hard to take.
"You definitely feel a ripple effect throughout. Whether you know him or not, you just have that feeling," one snowboarder told CTV British Columbia.
The avalanche came just one day after the B.C. Coroner's Service issued a public safety advisory warning all backcountry skiers, snowmobilers and other outdoor enthusiasts travelling in mountain terrain to use extreme caution because of avalanche risk.
Heavy snow and constantly changing weather affected the snowpack's stability in many areas of the province, the alert warned.
Skiers are advised to stay inbounds when skiing, and to especially avoid outbound areas containing gullies.
Three other people have died recently in snow-related accidents: A skier near Revelstoke, B.C. who fell into a tree well -- an area of soft snow beneath a tree -- and two snowmobilers north of 108 Mile House who were killed by an avalanche.
In B.C. alone, approximately 1,200 kilometres of provincial roads are prone to the danger of avalanches in 60 hazardous areas.
With a report from CTV British Columbia's Stephen Smart

 

[Praxius]

Good I hope he is charged... If that location was safe for skiing then they would have permitted it... they know that area in paticular is dangerous and known for avalance buildups.... they don't put those signs out there for their own health, and they don't have anything better to do but study these areas, so I would imagine they knew what they were talking about by no allowing people to go skiing there.

These guys wanted to take the road less traveled for what I would gather, bragging rights.... they screwed up, one died, the other is crippled and injured because of it.... is that justice enough for not following the rules? No.... because they could have caused an avalance which chould very well have carried down to the rest of the resort and injured or killed many others.

Gotta love Ego.

 

[karrie]

Not to mention what the cost to the tax payer is when people go off half-cocked like that. I doubt search and rescue is cheap. It's costly enough to search for people when the circumstances are purely accidental.

 

[Pangloss]

There is continuing discussion of backcountry rescue insurance: not that it ought to apply in a case like this.

It would work by something like a permit system - by a $20 annual backcountry rescue pass, and if you need to be rescued for whatever reason, your costs would be covered.

If you didn't have the pass and you needed rescue because of your own stupidity - and I've seen astonishing stupidity demonstrated by hiker a long way from help - you could be held liable for the cost of the rescue. The helicopter and the crew alone could run into the thousands of dollars.

In the case of these two criminally negligent skiiers, yeah, charge the survivor and sue both estates for the cost of the rescue.

Pangloss

 

[eh1eh]

How can they charge him with the death of the other skier? Did he force him to go down there? Did he trick him? Did he pass himself off as a guide and lead him there? I think not. Each made the decision to ski there. Why would one be culpable for the others death. Morons punishing morons, that is what this is. The police are just stomping their feet. Who did they charge when the Trudeau boy went into the lake? I guess I missed how they charged the people who were with him. The dumb telling the dumb they're wrong. Get a grip and make laws about skiing in these places and don't try to say someone with another person when jointly doing something stupid is responsible for their death.

 

[karrie]

How can they charge him with the death of the other skier? Did he force him to go down there? Did he trick him? Did he pass himself off as a guide and lead him there? I think not.

while I understand what you're saying, the legal system doesn't really work that way does it?

from what I understand, if you're driving drunk and kill everyone in your vehicle, you're still responsible for their deaths, even if they knew you were drunk when they got in with you.

legal responsibility doesn't evaporate just because the people with you were willing participants.

 

[Pangloss]

I agree with Karrie and will go further:

Each skiier exposed the other skiier to risk - either or both could have caused that avalanche. If it was both, or the one that survived (not that hard to determine), then the survivor is guilty of reckless endangerment, criminally negligent homicide, or something like that (hey, I'm not a lawyer, so take what I write with a big grain of salt).

I know that if two friends of mine did this, I'd beat the tar out of the survivor for being so incredibly stupid and irresponsible and for his part in the death of my other friend.

Pangloss

 

[eh1eh]

So if two people were driving motorcycles down the same road and ran into the back of a parked truck together and one died and the other didn't, the survivor would be culpable for the other motorcycle riders death?

 

[Pangloss]

If they were racing, sure. And that's the way the law reads right now.

Pangloss

 

[Kreskin]

This won't see court.

 

[s243a]

Such laws are repressive and shouldn't exist in the first place. It is just a back door way of trying to force people into doing what the state thinks is best for them. As for the ski hill example, may I suggest that if a skier triggers an avalanche on a ski hill that kills skiers in an inbounds part of the hill that the ski hill should do a better job at avalanche control. Skiers no the risk when they enter into areas where there is an avalanche danger and the state has no business making the decision for the skiers on where they are and are not allowed to ski.

 

[s243a]

I agree with Karrie and will go further:

Each skiier exposed the other skiier to risk - either or both could have caused that avalanche. If it was both, or the one that survived (not that hard to determine), then the survivor is guilty of reckless endangerment, criminally negligent homicide, or something like that (hey, I'm not a lawyer, so take what I write with a big grain of salt).

I know that if two friends of mine did this, I'd beat the tar out of the survivor for being so incredibly stupid and irresponsible and for his part in the death of my other friend.

Pangloss

Why don't you mind your business. Do you enjoy telling people what they can and cannot do?

 

[s243a]

Not to mention what the cost to the tax payer is when people go off half-cocked like that. I doubt search and rescue is cheap. It's costly enough to search for people when the circumstances are purely accidental.

My answer to that is if you think it costs to much to rescue people then don't go rescue them and they will decide themselves whether or not they think it is worth the risk.

 

[s243a]

It would work by something like a permit system - by a $20 annual backcountry rescue pass, and if you need to be rescued for whatever reason, your costs would be covered.

If you didn't have the pass and you needed rescue because of your own stupidity - and I've seen astonishing stupidity demonstrated by hiker a long way from help - you could be held liable for the cost of the rescue. The helicopter and the crew alone could run into the thousands of dollars.

That is certainly a much better idea then banning such activities.

 

[Pangloss]

Kreskin: You are probably right.

S243A:

You wrote: As for the ski hill example, may I suggest that if a skier triggers an avalanche on a ski hill that kills skiers in an inbounds part of the hill that the ski hill should do a better job at avalanche control. Skiers no the risk when they enter into areas where there is an avalanche danger and the state has no business making the decision for the skiers on where they are and are not allowed to ski.

The ski hill was doing avalanche control. It was telling skiers that an area was too dangerous and skiing there could trigger an avalanche. You are assuming that all skiers are smart, have had avalanche training, and aren't hot-doggers with illusions of their own immortality. These bozos were reckless with each others' lives and were contemptuous of the lives of any other people that could have been killed by the avalanche.

Like (I suspect) you, I have extensive backcountry experience including delayed rescue first aid, avalanche training and wilderness survival, among other courses. Stupid behaviour in the woods and on the slopes can, and does, kill.

Pangloss

 

[lone wolf]

In Ontario, a smowmobiler who crosses open water can be charged. Really, I can't see where boarding in an avalanche area is any different. The lives of rescuers are put at risk because of stupidity.

Woof!

 

[s243a]

Kreskin: You are probably right.

S243A:

You wrote: As for the ski hill example, may I suggest that if a skier triggers an avalanche on a ski hill that kills skiers in an inbounds part of the hill that the ski hill should do a better job at avalanche control. Skiers no the risk when they enter into areas where there is an avalanche danger and the state has no business making the decision for the skiers on where they are and are not allowed to ski.

The ski hill was doing avalanche control. It was telling skiers that an area was too dangerous and skiing there could trigger an avalanche. You are assuming that all skiers are smart, have had avalanche training, and aren't hot-doggers with illusions of their own immortality. These bozos were reckless with each others' lives and were contemptuous of the lives of any other people that could have been killed by the avalanche.

Like (I suspect) you, I have extensive backcountry experience including delayed rescue first aid, avalanche training and wilderness survival, among other courses. Stupid behaviour in the woods and on the slopes can, and does, kill.

Pangloss

I haven't ventured into the back country yet but certainly will prepare will before I do so. Rather then go right to the back country I might first try an intermediate step like delierium dive at sunshine village. It is like a backcountry area but within the bounds of the ski hill. I belive there is a package where you avalanche training and a guide. Should be fun.

 

[s243a]

In Ontario, a smowmobiler who crosses open water can be charged. Really, I can't see where boarding in an avalanche area is any different. The lives of rescuers are put at risk because of stupidity.

Woof!

As I said screw the risk to the rescuer example. If no one wants to rescue them so be it. As for the Ontario law is that for saftey or environmental reasons? I think I've heard but people snowmobiling across water. You must need a lot of speed. I'd never try it. But again I believe if that is what people want to do the state should have no say over it as long as they are not endangering anyone else. That could mean roping off a suitable landing area.

 

[Pangloss]

Well, these guys were chancing that the avalanche wouldn't hit anyone else - a dumb chance seeing as they were near a heavily populated ski village.

As for "screw the risk to the rescuer" - I want to be rescued if I get into trouble, and I don't want boneheads putting the lives of my (often volunteer) rescuers at risk because of stupidity.

And since I've been a volunteer rescuer* and I will be again when I move back to the coast - I really want the rescues I do to be because of accident, not stupidity. And I care a great deal about risk.

Pangloss

*Really basic stuff, beating the bushes and calling out the names of missing hikers while walking a line with other rescuers.

 

[s243a]

Well, these guys were chancing that the avalanche wouldn't hit anyone else - a dumb chance seeing as they were near a heavily populated ski village.

As for "screw the risk to the rescuer" - I want to be rescued if I get into trouble, and I don't want boneheads putting the lives of my (often volunteer) rescuers at risk because of stupidity.

And since I've been a volunteer rescuer* and I will be again when I move back to the coast - I really want the rescues I do to be because of accident, not stupidity. And I care a great deal about risk.

Pangloss

*Really basic stuff, beating the bushes and calling out the names of missing hikers while walking a line with other rescuers.

Doesn't an avalanche usually stabilize the area anyway? Otherwise why would Whistler purposely avalanche out their more expert terrain each day before the ski hill opens?