That might be the effect of this flash-over that they mentioned. It’s probably the point where the space and everything in it is so heated by the ceiling fire that everything ignites all at once.
1 Like
It might have been the flash-over fire mentioned by authorities, or it might have been beer kegs or CO2 cylinders for drinks exploding with the heat. I guess we can shorten the thread title to “Devastating fire in bar in Crans Montana”. Witnesses did hear explosions and that was the initial report, but these explosions are of little relevance.
Prevention and justice are not mutually exclusive. Without accountability, what motivation is their to stick to the rules?
If you put 10 people in a car designed to seat 5, and people get killed in an accident, are the police at fault?
Sure there was no intent, nobody wished for this horror show. But actions (or failure to act) have consequences…legally and emotionally. Even if the restaurant owners are acquitted, the 40+ ghosts will haunt them eternally.
There was a sudden blast of fire when the door opened and the fresh air came in. Some survivors refer to it as some kind of explosion. But it was already clear in the first morning after an accident that there were no real explosions. Those were only very first suggestions that cause some speculations about terroristic acts.
1 Like
Once again, I’m not a lawyer.
It seems the municipal council (or individual employees) failed their duty supervise the application of fire safety laws.
However, the Municipal Council did not install the flammable foam, did not hold an open flame close to the flammable foam, they did not host an event with overcapacity, so they are not liable for 40 deaths and 110+ injured. So, no investigation based on criminal law can be started against them.
It seems the municipal council is only liable for construction permits, operation permits and conducting annual fire safety inspections. Also, the emission of the construction and operation permits need still to be analyzed.
The definition of duties (devoirs de service), misconducts (violations des devoirs de service) and disciplinary measures (conséquences) is the Law of the Personnal of Canton Valais. This is not a civil or criminal procedure. It’s an administrative one. Anyway, even if the administrative measure is a fine of 100 CHF or some temporary ban from public function, this needs to be done.
RS 172.2 - Loi sur le personnel de l’Etat du Valais (LcPers)
There is also a law about the civil responsibility of public organizations and their agents. Compensation for injuries and death in case of gross negligence (négligence grave) are covered by this law. I guess the lawyers representing the families will try to prove gross negligence first, then go for compensation.
RS 170.1 - Loi sur la responsabilité des collectivités publiques et de leurs agents
Perhaps I phrased that wrongly.
More fitting, and what I meant to say would be that the onus should be on prevention rather than only punishment when it all goes wrong.
Of course people should be punished.
On the subject of prevention - does anyone know why the Cantonal Insurances have decided to create their own regulations rather than the IBC ones which, to me at least, appear to be stricter?
It’s not as if it’s going to cost them anything to draw up the rules as they are already there.
Is it possible that with less strict rules, there are less to be broken so fewer or lower third party claims. I’m speculating here but also finding it difficult to understand.
I think Switzerland does quite well on prevention, and we can’t measure what didn’t happen. Unfortunately the tiny holes in the Swiss Cheese lined up for this event. Fire deaths here tend to be confined to residential or farm homes.
I’m going to disagree here.
Unlike most of Europe, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors ( CO poisoning/smoke inhalation is the leading cause of fire deaths - especially whilst sleeping), there’s no mandatory requirement here and I don’t know anyone, apart from myself, who has them fitted.
Deaths from fires doubled from 2023 to 2024 and of course will be much higher this year.
Increased number of deaths is not a good thing.
2 Likes
Switzerland does absolutely super on the adoption of rules, laws and regulations. It is absolutely crap about enforcing them.
4 Likes
I would agree that smoke detectors should be mandatory in rental properties and all new builds. I’ve installed Shelly wifi smoke detectors which unlock the front door and raise the shutters in case of a detection.
The 2023/24 jump in deaths is concerning, but is it part of an upward trend? Do you have source?
A real lawyer (Mr. André Kuhn) was interviewed by 20min about the latest findings:
First thing, failing to do the fire safety inspections from 2020 to 2025 did not kill anyone directly, but it’s a fail to fulfill a job duty.
Mr Kuhn, what threatens the community leaders because prescribed checks have not been complied with?
First of all, this is only relevant in terms of employment law. Anyone who, as an employee, has a clearly assigned duty and does not fulfil it violates his duties.
I admire Mr. Kuhn, he’s so succinct. The key here is that the damage can be predictable and avoidable. From my layman perspective, if the bar was above capacity, the 2nd emergency exit blocked, and someone holding an open flame to the foam…all this is not predictable to the municipal authorities. The foam could go up in flames one day where only 10 people where there, everyone runs and zero injuries. So, quite hard to demonstrate criminal breach of duty by the municipal authorities. Anyway, this is the job of lawyers working for the families.
And when does it become a criminal breach of duty?
It only becomes criminally relevant if someone deliberately does nothing despite the obligation to act and thereby suffers criminally relevant damage – such as injuries or deaths. In addition, this damage must have been predictable and avoidable. This is about so-called injunctions.
What does this mean specifically for the Crans-Montana case?
At the moment, many things are open. The crucial question of causality is: has a lack of or inadequate control actually contributed to the fire or its consequences? And was that predictable and avoidable for the person responsible? That will now be the subject of criminal investigation.
The press conference of municipal council of Crans-Montana clarified that the last fire safety inspection was performed in 2019. The question here is if the order to perform a fire safety inpsectionwas not followed, or the order was not given in first place.
Does a single person have to “stick their head” in the end?
In principle, the person acting specifically is always responsible for criminal law. Or in the case of injunctions, the person who would have been obliged to act and has not carried out them. If the task has been delegated correctly, the responsibility lies with the delegated person. If it has not been delegated, the person responsible is responsible.
It’s not common, but municipalities or their employees can be prosecuted. 20min shares an example from guess the canton…Évolene (VS).
How often are municipalities or community employees in Switzerland prosecuted?
This is rather rare. Criminal law is always prosecuted by natural persons, not the community as such. As a rule, community employees act dutifully. Cases of criminal duty breach are exceptions.
I doubt the municipal authorities can be prosecuted criminally. Anyway, there are plenty of things to do via administrative procedures for breach of duty.
Back to the ownership of the premises used as bar, it’s complex.
The initials of a Swiss citizen (JB) owning them were being mentioned in the media. JB came out to talk to the media today.
Back in 2015, the premises were owned by the father of JB. At some point (unclear, but after 2015 and before 2022), JB’s father dies and he inherits the premises. He sold the premises to the bar operators back in 2022. Allegedly, the change of ownership should have triggered some inspection/control.
While Mr. JB was not the owner, he was the building manager (administrateur de Propriété par Étages).
In 2015, JB recalled a meeting with the bar manager and the head of the security department of the municipality of Chermignon.
In 2015, Julien Beytrison recalled a meeting with the bar manager and the head of the security department of the municipality of Chermignon…he remembers some of the requests: “For the building’s safety, we were asked to install fire doors and improve access to the emergency exit, particularly regarding signage and lighting for the continuously powered panels. Once these requests were met, the work was approved by the municipality and the bar was able to open.”
Mr. JB let go a very hot potato. The bar operators seem to be also the owners of the premises, that’s some level of liability.
I’m sure I read it in an article about the Crans-montana fire but I can’t find it again (there are so many articles). If I do, I’ll post a link.
Of course it may not have been a trend but a one-year (now going to be two) year blip.
Switzerland is very safe regarding fires but safety can lead to complacency.
I’m not totally comfortable about self-responsibility (which is a big thing here) as a way of avoiding accidents.
For example, there’s no ski-patrol here and people can generally go as fast as they want.
Great in some ways but the number of people I know here who have nearly died (and have had life-changing injuries) because someone going fast and crashing into them is not small.
Back to fires: Deaths are only one factor.
A country with excellent healthcare may have fewer deaths from fires but that could mean that people aren’t dying but are left with ever-painful life-changing burns or lung damage.
I’m using NEST smoke/CO detectors and do a weekly test and have just changed the batteries (they are not cheap!).
The nightlight feature as you walk past is excellent and I really noticed it the other night when after resetting a fuse to change some other lights, the normal dim light we have on the landing at night didn’t come on and it was pitch black for a moment, until the Nest lamp came on.
2 Likes
We have a smoke detector but not one for CO. No naked flames anywhere in our house, no fireplace, heating is heat pump. I replace smoke detectors batteries every six months in my calendar), Not certain what a CO would add.
Do you replace the smole detectors every 10 years? Smoke detectors age and become less reliable. 8 to 10 years is the maximum reliable lifetime. For this reason,.many (most?) current models have a built-in, unchangeable 10 year battery.
(for example)
The Nest ones tell you when they need changing by flashing.
Maybe not much. Useful when you have a oil (or other solid fuel) boiler or a log fire.
We have both.
I can see that, but we have neither.
I’d say no unless you live in an apartment block with neighbours who have any of those things or a shared garage.
People have died of CO poisoning in a tent (pretty air porous) with a smoulding BBQ nearby which they didn’t extinguish before going to bed.
Getting back to the Crans-montana fire - a set of loud fire alarms going off may not have stopped the teenagers filming the fire immediately but may have got at least some of the other people in the bar to get out more quickly, leaving the exits relatively clear for the others.
1 Like
The NZZ made a summary of the press conference today by CM municipal authorities.. It’s a bit weird to read all this:
According to Féraud (president of CM muncipal council), the bar was reviewed for fire protection in 2016, 2018 and 2019. Of particular interest before the media conference was whether the acoustic foam on the ceiling of the basement bar, which was obviously easily flammable, was controlled. The community expressed contradictory information on this.
Nicolas Féraud said that for the comprehensive conversion of the party cellar in 2015, in which wide-ranging acoustic foam was installed, the owner had not applied for a permit. He did not have to do that, especially because it was construction work inside the building.
The municipality president therefore sees the responsibility primarily with the owner: «As a builder, he must follow the laws, in particular with regard to the choice of materials and the attachment of them in a professional way.» However, a municipal security officer had inspected the practically simultaneous external conversions of the bar for a porch, Féraud further said.
The commissioner (municipal security officer) demanded “additions and modifications in connection with the fire protection standards in the basement”. However, he found “no problem whatsoever with the material of sound insulation”.
And here comes a declaration that the review of of the building materials is not legally required in the case of fire protection checks according to Canton Valais laws.
Even after the cash conversion, the municipal safety officers had assessed the foam at the 2018 and 2019 checks as “acceptable,” Féraud further said. Whether they did this actively remained open. The municipality president pointed out that a review of the building materials used was not legally required in the case of fire protection checks.
In fact, the Valais Regulation on Fire Prevention does not explicitly require such a review under the heading “periodic controls.”
However, a tiny little conflict arises. Cantons agreed some years ago to use the same technical regulations called VKF/AEAI fire protection regulations. In practice, these are legally binding federal regulations. The current version of these regulations went into force in 01.01.2015, so they were valid when the construction of the bar was made. These regulations tell that the lining materials of walls and ceilings in premises with certain occupancy need to meet some fire resistance standard. The videos show that the foam did not meet this standard in practice.
But, there’s a puzzle. It seems that the federal regulations say construction materials must meet a fire resistance standard, while the municipal councilor says cantonal law says municipal fire inspectors are not mandated to check the compliance with federal regulations.
Does this make any sense? Is there a tragic hole between cantonal and federal laws? Or do the municipal authorities just revealed that they don’t care much about federal regulations?
That’s possibly because while the regulations say that materials must meet a fire resistance standard - which means the builders must use those materials, the inspector would not be able to ascertain whether they did comply by inspection for a couple of reasons at least.
- Materials may have been be covered behind paintwork/plaster or otherwise be not accessible to the inspector without damage.
- Materials could only be ascertained to meet the standard by testing which would be firstly destructive and secondly, the test would not be controlled enough to be meaningful.
During the press conference the journalist asked whether the materials should not have been proved during the acceptance inspection after the renovation. But of course current authorities didn’t have any information about that.