UKC

Three mountain guides will not face manslaughter charges over the death of their client Michael Matthews on Mount Everest.


http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: FFS- mountaineering is a dangerous sport. blah blah blah with all the BMC statement of participation etc. The Client must have accepted the risks- just sounds like his father hadn't. People die on Everest- especially in storms- FACT. Good on the Judge for throwing it out of court!

Nikki

In reply to nikinko:

and with your experience you are highly qualified to comment of course....

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: If you go to the independent link the 50 best campsites link on the right is worth a click too, not all luxury campsites, some pretty reasonable ones too.

In reply to JonC: I have enough experience to know that people die on Everest and it's part of what we do and you don't go to the hills anywher without accepting the risks.

Nikki

In reply to nikinko:

I suggest you read some of the earlier threads on this case in order to understand why it isn't nearly as simple as that.

In reply to nikinko:

I think you're missing the point. People must accept the risks that are inherent to the ascent. That doesn't, mean that normal obligations under the law can be ignored.

If, for example, I shot someone on the summit of everest, then I couldn't use the 'he should have known the risks' argument. Likewise, neither could someone who had knowingly supplied faulty equipment. Whether this was the right decision or not is a matter for the courts. I don't know enough to comment, do you?

Mark

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I seem to remember a thread on this subject getting pulled due to possilbe legal action against UCK by the guys dad???

In reply to Anonymous:

Fair enough- hadn't registered the faulty equipment bit about the article before posting. *blushes*.

Nikki

In reply to Anonymous:



This is a completely silly argument. Shooting someone at the top of everest is not a risk associated with mountaineering, it is a risk associated with socialising with human beings. But the risk of a blizzard, where vissibility and movement becomes restricted, and were frostbite risk increases substantially, it is an inherent risk associated to high altitude mountaineering. Since a blizzard is an unpredictable weather phenomenon, clients must understand that if they are caught up there in those conditions, there is very little that someone else could do for them. This, I think, is what the father of the victim failed to understand.

In reply to JonC: He is still entitled to his opinion, being right doesnt depend on if you can climb Everest or do E5 or not.

He is also still right, most importantly.

You should give him credit for knowing whats what already unlike some with vast amounts of experience and no fooking idea.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The Judge said: "The law should not inhibit adventure....If ever there is a case to be emphatically dismissed, this is it."

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

There is an article by Ed Douglas in the Observer about this case:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1826983,00.html

Douglas also had a dig at MountEverest.net, who respond:

http://www.mounteverest.net/news.php?id=10255

In reply to Oggers: I think there are a lot of relieved if some what angry high altitude guides out there. The My understanding of this case is that it refers to the "reasonable duty of care" that might be expected by a paying client to a professional guide. There is a duty of care regardless of the altitude the only difference with Mt Blanc for example is the altitude and what might be considered "reasonable". If a client wished to accept all of the risks inherent in climbing everest, then the would not hire a guide. Guides are hired on all mountains in order to distance the inexperience of the client from the reality of the situation, i.e the guide takes on and mitigates the experience gap to a "Reasonable" level. Abandoning your client with little real reason, giving your client faulty O equipment, using second rate oxygen and pretending it was poisk etc etc, at no altitude are these reasonable acts by a professional. Come to think of it what are the professional wqualifications of the guides concerned????

The reason other guides are happy with this judgement and indeed some in the mountaineering establishment, is that the case if it was won could have created a messy precedent that the professional and well intentioned guides could be trapped by. I suspect they are also angry because unlike some of the journalistic comment on the case, they are more informed and aware of the real responsibilities of a guide to his client at altitude and the realities of this incident, unlike the inexperienced bar talk of some journies!!!

In reply to Humph:
The reply on Mounteverest.net is a nice exercise in personal attacks. Made me feel a bit sick to read it

In reply to Graham T:

Yes, the response from MountEverest.net tends to confirm the allegations made by Ed Douglas.