Article 221-6 of the French Penal Code provides that causing the death of another person — under the conditions and distinctions set out in Article 121-3 — through clumsiness, carelessness, inattention, negligence, or a breach of a duty of prudence or safety imposed by law or regulation, constitutes involuntary manslaughter. It is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of €45,000.

Article 121-3 of the French Penal Code states that there can be no crime or offence without the intent to commit it. However, where the law so provides, an offence exists in cases of deliberate endangerment of another person. An offence also exists, where the law so provides, in cases of negligence, carelessness, or breach of a duty of prudence or safety imposed by law or regulation, if it is established that the perpetrator did not exercise normal diligence, taking into account, where appropriate, the nature of their tasks or functions, their skills, as well as the authority and resources available to them.

The same article further provides that, in such cases, natural persons who did not directly cause the harm but who created or contributed to creating the situation that allowed the harm to occur, or who failed to take measures that would have prevented it, may still incur criminal liability. This applies if it is established that they either (i) manifestly and deliberately violated a specific duty of prudence or safety imposed by law or regulation, or (ii) committed a particularly serious fault that exposed others to a risk of grave harm which they could not have ignored.

In April 2024, during a training camp organized by an alpine club for young climbers in its “climbing school,” at Orpierre, which is a site known for its well-equipped cliffs, a 16-year-old participant fell approximately 15 metres to her death.

The investigation found that the fatal accident occurred during a top-rope descent: the climber, who was being belayed by another participant, slipped. The rope in use was too short for the route and had no stopper knot at its free end. As a result, the rope ran completely through the Reverso belay device, leaving no support.

The route was 30 metres high, while the rope used by the victim was only 50 metres long. A 60 m or 70–80 m rope would typically be required to lower a climber safely from such a height.

Investigators concluded that the use of this unsuitable rope resulted from a lack of supervision of the minors by the instructors. No instructor was present near the area where the ropes were stored, and the 50 m and 80 m ropes were similar in colour, increasing the risk of mix-up. The young climbers had also not tied a stopper knot at the end of the rope which is a basic safety measure that would have prevented the rope from running out completely.

1. Public Prosecutor
The Public Prosecutor charged the alpine club and two of its volunteer instructors with involuntary manslaughter in relation to the fatal fall of a 16-year-old climber during a youth camp in Orpierre in April 2024. 

The prosecution argued that the death was the result of a chain of serious, preventable failures:

• Unsafe rope selection: The minors used a 50 m rope on a ~30 m route, which was too short for safe lowering. The rope ran out and passed fully through the belay device, causing a fall of around 10–15 m.
• No stopper knot: There was no knot at the free end of the rope to prevent it from running through the device — a basic safety measure that would likely have stopped the accident.
• Lack of supervision: Although many adults were present, minors were effectively allowed to operate autonomously, with no clearly assigned supervisor at each rope team, no systematic safety checks, and no adult physically controlling rope issue and rope use at the site.
• Disorganised equipment management: Different ropes (including a shorter rappel rope and longer single ropes) were stored together and looked similar in colour, which made it easy for minors to pick an unsuitable rope without noticing.
• No structured safety briefing that day: Instructors did not hold a dedicated safety talk at the start of the outdoor session to restate core rules like tying a stopper knot, despite the known risks of outdoor climbing with minors. 

On that basis, the prosecution said that the club, as organiser, committed “very serious negligence” in its duty of prudence and safety toward minors, and
the two instructors (the club president and the youth section leader) each committed a particularly serious fault by failing to ensure adequate training, supervision, and equipment management, thereby exposing minors to a lethal risk. 

2. Civil Parties (victim’s family)
The parents and close relatives of the deceased 16-year-old joined the case as civil parties. They argued that this was not an unforeseeable accident but the foreseeable result of negligent organisation and supervision in a high-risk activity involving minors. They asked the court to recognise the criminal responsibility of the club and the two instructors, and compensate their moral harm (“préjudice d’affection”). They sought significant damages for emotional loss, with individual claims in the tens of thousands of euros, plus legal costs. 

3. Defence (club and instructors)
The club and the two volunteer instructors did not deny that the fall happened during an activity they organised, but they advanced several arguments in their defence: 

• Experience/autonomy of the minors: They described the two girls (the victim and her belayer) as attentive, technically competent, and already climbing independently outdoors in the 5c/6a range. In their view, these were not beginners and could operate with a degree of autonomy.
• Practical limits of supervision: They said it was not realistically possible to have an adult physically checking every rope at every moment, especially in an outdoor setting with multiple groups. They added that the 50 m rope and the longer ropes were similar in colour, so even an instructor nearby might not immediately notice the mix-up in rope length.
• Existing safety culture: The instructors stated that safety rules (including rope management and end knots) are taught throughout the year in the club, and that the group already knew these procedures. They acknowledged there was no formal safety talk at the start of that session but suggested it would have been redundant for this group.
• No deliberate breach / no direct act causing the fall: Both defendants are long-serving volunteers with no criminal records. They argued that they did not hand out the wrong rope, did not remove any safety knot, and did not “cause” the fall themselves. From their perspective, this was a tragic and unforeseeable combination of individual errors, not a foreseeable consequence of gross negligence.

The court ultimately rejected the defence’s core argument that this was an unforeseeable lapse by otherwise autonomous youths. Instead, the court accepted the prosecution’s and civil parties’ position that:

• Treating minors as autonomous climbers in a high-risk outdoor setting, without assigning clear supervisory responsibility, without structured safety checks at the start of the session, and without controlling rope allocation, was itself an extremely serious fault.
• The rope mix-up and the missing stopper knot were not “unpredictable,” but foreseeable consequences of that supervisory model.
• Those systemic failures were directly causal and therefore met the threshold for involuntary manslaughter not only for the club as a legal entity, but also (as indirect authors) for the two volunteer instructors. 

The association (club) was fined €20,000 after the court found it guilty of extremely serious negligence. The court held that:

• The selection and use of an unsuitable rope was the result of inadequate equipment management.
• The fact that the rope was then actually used by minors arose from insufficient supervision by the instructors.
• The absence of a stopper knot at the end of the rope — a simple measure that would likely have prevented the accident — was attributable both to inadequate training of the minors and to a failure by supervisors to enforce safety procedures.

The two supervisors were each sentenced to two years of suspended imprisonment and were permanently banned from supervising sporting activities. The criminal court found that they had committed serious faults by:

• failing to provide sufficient safety training to the minors (including specifically the systematic use of a stopper knot),
• failing to ensure adequate safety supervision on the day of the activity, and
• failing to ensure proper equipment management.

Each of these failures exposed minors to a risk of death. The court considered these failures to be of “extreme gravity,” meeting the standard of involuntary manslaughter.

In parallel to the criminal proceedings, an administrative order was issued:

• the club was prohibited, by prefectoral decision, from organising any sports activities for minors for five years; and
• four club supervisors were banned from supervising sports activities for 15 years.

These administrative sanctions are subject to appeal.

The main penalties (suspended imprisonment) are consistent with previous case law in France regarding fatal accidents, but the additional penalties reflect a new level of severity, indicative of society's evolving stance, which increasingly condemns the death of a minor, especially in the context of sports activities.

The severity of the court's ruling in the case of a fatal accident involving a teenager is not surprising, given that the identified errors seem all the more inexcusable because they occurred during an activity considered "high-risk," and therefore requiring even greater vigilance, especially when minors are involved. 

Furthermore, it would be advisable that the inherently dangerous nature of rock climbing, particularly in natural environments, like that of any "vertical" activity that exposes participants to the risk of falling from a height, not be routinely ignored. Alongside the recreational aspect, greater emphasis should be placed on teaching appropriate techniques and behaviors to reduce this risk. 

Without questioning the validity of the judgment rendered (which is final), it is legitimate to consider the implications of such decisions for organizers of these types of recreational activities and volunteer instructors, who are increasingly hesitant to assume these roles with young people, and particularly with minors. The benefits of physical activity for young people, and the educational value of sports activities, are universally recognized, including those involving risk, such as "vertical" activities, and particularly rock climbing, which has been integrated into school curricula for several years. Given that the majority of sports activities rely on volunteer instructors within sports clubs, there is a risk that such decisions could discourage this type of socially beneficial activity.