Mountain Clients

‘A Triumph for Common Sense’, so wrote Steven Venables in a specialist magazine after Peter Pope, a client of the Asscoiation of British Mountain Guides (BMG), specifically, David (cubby) Cuthbertson, was allowed to place all of his own protection during a rock climb. In the unsuing fall, Peter Pope hit the ground and injured himself. We will never know the true series of events that took place on the 15 April, 1990. While the judeg stopped short of calling Peter Pope a liar, he would have been aware also, that the Defendent’s professional reputation was to some extent at stake. That Mr Pope also had a career did not apparently, matter.

But what is known, is that at the time of the accident, the BMG were advertising: ‘Adventure with Security,’ and offering: ‘Safe Guarantees,’ ‘Our members are competent in all aspect of clients care,’ (false advertising finally removed from the British Mountaineering Council sponsored - High Magazine, now High Mountain Sport in 1997 – the name has changed since). The judge, was not made aware of this material fact; this false advertising.

Peter Pope, quite possibly enticed by the above mentioned adverts, thought that as he had paid for a guide (Pope had climbed with Cuthbertson on other occasions) he was entitled to have his safety guaranteed. That would have been a perfectly reasonable assumption, had he not been allowed to placed all of his own protection on the fateful climb. That he was allowed to do so beggers belief and it is here that the guide failed his client.

Only when the guide or instructor place all or some of the protection in advance can the clients safety be more or less guaranteed. On another occasion Pope had lead a climb whilst with an amatuer climber, a friend. The friend insisted on pre-placing all of the protection before allowing Pope to lead that climb. If an amatuer could see the need for such elaborate safety – why not the professional guide who had been paid (the BMG still advertising that they ensure client safety when they blatantly do not) to ensure his clients safety.?

It should be noted here, that whilst Cuthbertson had any number of ‘expert witnesses’ prepared to assist in his defence, Peter Pope had – none. His sole assistance in his defence regarding the technicalities, was Mr Luccock who had: some climbing knowledge. There was a determination that Pope’s case should not succeed as shown by the stark responce: ‘A Triumph for Common Sense.’  It was not a triumph for common sense, it certainly was not a triumph for British justice, because other BMG clients were to die believing that their safety was guaranteed.

Even though the two pieces of equipment; protection pulled out, it still remains a mystery why Pope came into contact with ground. The second and last piece of the protection held Pope ‘momentarily’ at which time a good belayer would be frantically taking any slack rope. But the belayer in this instance did not do so. Instead of reaching out to grab Pope who momenterily landed on the ledge where the Defendant stood, the defendent should have been controlling the rope until – the leader recovered fully. Pope could still have injured himself in the fall had he been stopped from striking the ground and if he had been thus injured, I do not believe that he would have started a claim for compensation against his belayer, the BMGuide.

The judge throughout the case thought the defendent – not to be a reckless man; climber. The judge of course, did not see the photograph of the same guide, a member of the Association of British Mountain Guides – ice climbing recently,  whilst not wearing – a safety helmet. In the main climbers ice climb, whilst not wearing some kind of head protection. While the vast majority of climbers do not wear protective head gear when rock climbing – something that I will never understand, the vast majority do so when ice climbing, winter mountaineering.

The climber in the picture above is climbing the treacherous Gouter Ridge on the ‘Normal ascent’ route on Mont Blanc. This ridge and the gully to its left (looking in) is notorious for rock fall (half of which is caused by other climbers disturbing loose rock). Each summer, climbers are killed and injured (usually head injuries) whilst climbing this populare ridge. So why is the individual pictured – not wearing a protective helmet.?

Whilst descnding this same ridge in 1989, we passed two Dutch girls in the company of a French (Chamonix) UIAGM guide, they were also descending. As we passed, wearing helmets, I heard one girl comment to her guide: “Why are we not wearing helmets.” They suddenly became aware of the numerous climbers climbing up the ridge, past us (most of whom were not wearing helmets). Some of them,  would be knocking rocks down the mountain as we descended below them – for the next hour. Common sense or what? The arrow, top left, indicates the position of the Tete Rousse hut 1,800ft below. The looseness of the terrian is quite evident in the picture.