A decade after an Italian skier died following a collision at the Téléverbier ski resort, a Swiss court has upheld a conviction against a resort official for negligent homicide. The ruling, confirmed Wednesday by the Federal Tribunal, centers on the failure to adequately mark a safety perimeter near a ski lift [[1]]. The case underscores the legal responsibilities of ski area operators to proactively mitigate hazards and ensure skier safety, even in a country renowned for its alpine sports [[1]].
A Swiss court has upheld a conviction against a ski resort official in connection with the 2014 death of an Italian skier, a decade after the incident. The ruling underscores the responsibility of ski resorts to ensure the safety of their slopes.
The accident occurred around noon above the departure point of a ski lift at Téléverbier. The skier, described as experienced and wearing a helmet and ski mask, collided with a rope delineating a safety perimeter around the lift. The impact was severe enough to dislodge her helmet and mask, and she died several hours later at a hospital.
On Wednesday, the Federal Tribunal confirmed a sentence of 36 conditional day fines originally issued by the Valais Justice Department. The ski area official was found guilty of negligent homicide for failing to ensure the rope was clearly visible, such as with flags, as had been the practice in the past.
Ensuring Skier Safety
Judges at Mon Repos emphasized that ski lift operators are obligated to maintain safety on their terrain. This includes protecting skiers from hazards that aren’t immediately obvious, within reasonable limits and acknowledging individual skier responsibility. Clear signage is required near areas presenting particular dangers.
In the 2014 case, the area marked by the rope constituted a specific danger due to its proximity to the ski lift. While the official did not dispute the need for additional signage, he argued he wasn’t directly responsible for the oversight.
The first Criminal Court determined the ski area official had a specific duty of supervision, and should have anticipated potential errors. Because his duty of care involved overseeing others, he could not rely on an assumption of competence. The fact that he didn’t personally install the rope does not absolve him of criminal responsibility, the court found.
