Tangential issue. The topic came over dinner with friends last weekend. Someone mentioned the reviews on google. It’s curious how the guy who is now on pre-trial detention was soooooo defensive, telling customers to never come back, etc. Take a look.
I’ll just take it as a red flag. Every once in a while there are news in Switzerland about restaurant or club operators doing the same. When the owner tell the customers to **** off, it might be a pervasive attitude that influences a lot of decisions.
The decision of the municipal council to do a complaint left everyone dumbfounded:
Two days after the drama of January 1st, the Crans-Montana Communal Council announced that it would first have “the unanimous decision” to bring “civil action” in criminal proceedings. In summary, the common law also understands that she is a victim in this file.
Cantonal prosecutor said no:
The criminal dossier is obtained from the RTS police station so that the representative of the public ministry does not intend to respond to the request of the municipality.
Here is what he wrote on 5 January to the municipality’s lawyer: “It is estimated that the municipality does not fulfill the criteria of the offending party. In fact (…) it consists of all people where the rights are not touched directly by an infraction.”
The informed magistrate is also the lawyer of the municipality who intends “to deny the municipality of Crans-Montana the quality of the offending party, where it acts in such an authority as to protect the public interest.”
The lawyer representing the municipality decided to withdraw the complaint. The municipal council forgets to tell the media about this:
The prosecutor then gave the lawyer five days to submit his observations.
Three days later, on January 8, the municipality’s lawyer, Gaspard Couchepin, informed the Public Prosecutor’s Office that the municipality was backtracking. “I am writing to inform you that, out of respect for the victims, and regardless of any legal considerations, the municipality of Crans-Montana is withdrawing its request to become a plaintiff.”
Just a suggestion, but in the light of this tragedy, why not set up a website with a legal paper you can take to your commune to ask them to confirm fire inspections have been carried out locally in the past year for all premises at risk? A website that could also host a place where replies could be filed. The goal at the end of the day is to ensure communes around Switzerland don’t just pay lip service to this event, but actually take action to ensure it doesn’t happen in their backyard. And to be frank, a site that would provide independent evidence of gross mismanagement with a commune should something like this happen again. The bar owners are most definitely guilty, but the commune must take on some responsibility, too. I live in a ski resort and I would be more than happy to present such a paper to the local commune.
But, it would go against Swiss ethos of no accountability and the culture of self-responsibility where it’s actually up to the bar’s customers to do their own risk assessments when visiting the bar.
If any officials, in addition to the bar owners themselves, don’t go to prison over this then I will be extremely disappointed but not surprised.
Much better idea. This solves the problem of having the data in a single place and people opposing to share this info with an unaccountable stranger on the internet.
Restaurants already share publicly ratings like Swiss Guest Award, Gault & Millau, etc. They could also hang on a wall the fire safety inspection docs nearby the cash register.
And, no law has to be changed, it may only need to be a new custom.
Baby steps. The issue here is self-responsibility VS Bünzli.
It’s really curious that noise after 22h00 or dropping glass bottles at recycling point at pause time at noon end up in calls to the police while an issue that implies mortal risk it’s something concerned citizens never think about.
Bünzli can contribute to make life better, just point them in the right direction.
Soon after the fire, there were two bars in Adelboden (due to hold the Skiing World Cup) which many people reported as deathtraps and should be shut down.
The authorities knew did and publicly said they would do nothing except monitor the situation.
I think there are concerned citizens but their warnings are falling on deaf ears.
I didn’t know until recently but they were already banned in Neuchâtel without official permission from the canton. The only ones allowed here without authorisation are the very small sparklers/sparkler ‘candles’ used on birthday cakes.
I wonder which cantonal laws mandate the cantonal government to do that.
The Valais cantonal government has also set up a fund for victims of the fire. A lump sum of CHF10,000 ($12,486) will be provided for each person who was hospitalised or died, the authorities said.
A donation account has been opened for individuals and organisations wishing to contribute. All funds will go to an independent foundation, which is still in the process of being set up.
The issue here is that insurance company declared a 2nd time that both the bar and Crans-Montana municipality have limited insurance coverage. If insurance coverage is not enough, let companies and governments go bankrupt.
“Both the municipality and the bar have subscribed” to Axa Switzerland “standard products, common for the sector, with an insurance sum limited per contract,” Axa France told AFP on Tuesday, January 13, after a communication from its Swiss branch to local media.
“Depending on liability, the coverage amounts—strictly speaking—provided by the policies taken out by the municipality and the bar will likely not be sufficient to cover all the financial losses suffered by the injured and the families of the deceased,” Axa Switzerland warned in a written statement.
The issue here is that the government acts if they were an NGO instead of doing their job clearly defined in laws. Accepting donations from the public to cover the incoming wave of lawsuits is not the way to deal with liability.
