We have a "good Samaritan" act here too. I recently took a 2 day first aid course and this was a topic of conversation. It used to be that if you saw someone hurt you had to help. Now even if you know first aid you are not obligated to help. But if you do decide to help you are not allowed to start helping and then just leave the person. Unless there is danger to yourself you have to stay until qualified help arrives. But the act is basically an umbrella for the person helping. That way they can't be sued by the injured party for the help they offered/gave. I think it's a good act because it would really suck to say find someone unconscious and give them CPR and later get sued for cracking a rib keeping the person alive until the EMTs arrived. Really would discourage anyone offering help.

An interesting concern that developed in the US some years ago, was the concern for contracting AIDS while giving CPR. Now with the all-chest method for CPR, that is probably less of an issue. We have CPR kits (that are supposed to be carried by trip leaders) that include face masks and gloves.

Here in the US I wouldn’t want to add any new laws. We already have an overly parasitic legal system and too many people who feel when anything bad happens somebody needs be charged with something. Throw non-climbing grief stricken relatives in the mix and the biggest risk we’ll face could be the courts, not gravity.

Such a law could have the opposite of its intended effect. Just as kids in the rough part of town know to scatter when they see a cop, climbers could start becoming reluctant to adopt the less experienced encountered on route.

Current etiquette has us not only helping those in need, but watching over others to warn them of dangers, or talking them through difficulties. I appreciate when someone from another party points out a couple holds they just used. On many occasions I’ve adopted people from other parties who turned back early and we hiked out with them. How often have we made note when we knew someone was the last person coming off the mountain?

We already have to choose our climbing partners wisely. There are a lot of people I’ll do any easy summer hike with that I don’t invite along on tougher routes or in the winter. These decisions are based on what’s prudent, not liability concerns. But if we throw prosecutors in the mix, every time there’s an accident, it could make matters worse for people wanting to help. We’ve already had the debate on rescue fees keeping people from asking for help before it’s too late. We don’t want criminal charges to be part of that mix.

While it might be appropriate to press charges in blatant cases of refusing aid, I’d hate to have climbers having to lawyer up to defend their decisions made under difficult situations. What if two parties each have members experiencing cold and altitude issues? Each party is doing good to get itself off the mountain. One party gets out okay and the other has things go badly. Perhaps the two parties get mixed together and along the way. I don’t want the US legal system involving itself it that type of messy situation.

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:

charles wrote:...A passing ski-mountaineer was asked to help search for the victim - he refused and carried on his tour...

Sounds so.... so.....

So European?

It does, but if it´d happened in the US, the victims companion would have pulled his semi-automatic and shot him.

Don't know how this can be defended, in this specific case. You have an avalanche victim that needs to be found with a small group of searchers. Adding on additional body could have dramatically altered tthe outcome of the situation, or not. The mentality of, "oh its none of my business" is absurd.

I've participated in ad-hoc rescues, and for me it was never a question would I or wouldn't I. It just had to get done. On one, I was out soloing, and was using an easy route to gain access to a much more difficult route when I saw a woman have a major fall (on ice). It was a lot of work that wenjt well into the night, at the onset of a major winter storm, in which I myself got hurt. The best reward I ever got was a thank you letter from the team, and then many monthes later from the victim (who on the date of the letter was still not able to sit up in the hospital, 1 month after the accident).In my mind, there ws no other option. For me the letter was more important then soloing Ichinokurasawa later on. Its a no brainer.



a later addition: I can appreciate ethe good samaritan laws, but who thinks about if I do this, will I ever be sued. Sometimes people think too much or am I too nieve. Someone is in trouble, you provide assistance. I understand the dangers that lie in this endeavor. I've been hurt.


One of my friends lost his life saving another. Fully understand this but in my mind there is never a question.

charles wrote:...but if it´d happened in the US, the victims companion would have pulled his semi-automatic and shot him.

No, the Good Samaritan would have been sued by some sleazy lawyer who figured out a loophole in the Good Samaritan laws.

U.S. law smiles on the priest and Levite who carefully walked past on the far side of the road

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:

charles wrote:...but if it´d happened in the US, the victims companion would have pulled his semi-automatic and shot him.

No, the Good Samaritan would have been sued by some sleazy lawyer who figured out a loophole in the Good Samaritan laws.

Here is a link to the Tirol Avallanche service. Evidently the survivor asked two people for help, both refused!
http://lawinenwarndienst.blogspot.co.at/2012/12/unfassbar.html

"Good Samaritan Law" is not relevant in that specific case, but rather the Penal Code ("Strafgesetzbuch"), in particular articles related to the "failure to provide assistance", which is considered a serious criminal offense in the legislation of most (if not all) European countries, and probably many other countries using the civil law system.

This thread is interesting for me in the sense that I was assuming such (legal) obligation to be universal. I've learnt that is it not the case, especially in countries using the common law system.

Anyway, the case is quite clear if the information published in the Austrian Avalanche Service blog is correct: the person justified his refusal to provide assistance with a laconic "I'm not interested in it" before continuing his way…

If proven guilty, I hope he will get the maximum sentence according to the Austrian law, which is one year prison (§ 95 Unterlassung der Hilfeleistung mit Todesfolge). Enough time for him to revise not only his legal obligations, but hopefully also to think about his moral duty to assist a person in danger…

coldfoot wrote:Maybe he was training for Everest.

Nepal legislation is based on the common law system, so he might have been safe there... If Everest was located in the Alps, a certain number of questionable people might certainly have ended their expedition behind bars, although I don't think this reflect the average normal behaviour on Everest.