Introduction

In general, Swiss law recognizes three main types of liability:

• criminal liability, which essentially aims to punish the perpetrator of offenses. In the case of the fire, several natural and legal persons (i.e., legal entities such as companies or institutions) could be implicated in this regard (e.g., the direct perpetrator of the fire, persons who failed in their duty of care, etc.).

  Criminal liability is investigated ex officio by the Public Prosecutor's Office, in conjunction with the police, then it is decided by a Criminal Court.

• civil liability, which aims to repair economic harm and to compensate for suffering that cannot be repaired by a monetary indemnity called moral damages.

  This liability can be investigated at the same time as criminal liability, but its scope is potentially much broader: many persons are legally liable for economic consequences even without fault on their part. Furthermore, persons can be acquitted in criminal proceedings and still be civilly liable.

  The problem in a disaster like this is that many persons may be civilly liable without necessarily being included in the criminal issue. In this type of case, they should be identified as soon as possible and the statute of limitations should be interrupted with regard to them. Indeed, these liabilities can no longer be pursued if mandatory deadlines are not respected.

  If the State has failed, it can also be sued for civil liability.

• administrative liability, which aims at the pronouncement of sanctions or measures if public standards have been violated.

  This last one is of little direct interest to victims or their loved ones, but supports the other two liabilities as needed.

Civil liabilities to consider

In a case like this, the following liabilities must be verified:

• the liability of the perpetrator of the fire itself if he or she can be identified (adoption of dangerous or intentional behavior);

• if the fire was caused by a product, possible liability of the seller / importer / manufacturer based on federal legislation on product liability, with some particularities regarding pyrotechnics:

  Comment pourrait s’apprécier la responsabilité potentielle du fait des produits et la pyrotechnie en lien avec l’incendie de Crans-Montana ?

• the liability of the manager and potentially concerned employee(s) (possible violation of duty of care or operating conditions):

  Comment pourrait s’apprécier la responsabilité potentielle d’un gérant d’établissement en lien avec l’incendie de Crans-Montana ?

• the liability of the building owner(s), respectively of the concerned unit:

  Comment pourrait s’apprécier la responsabilité potentielle du propriétaire de bâtiment en lien avec l’incendie de Crans-Montana ?

• the liability of the State in the broad sense (Municipality / Canton):

  Comment pourrait s’apprécier la responsabilité potentielle de l’État en lien avec l’incendie de Crans-Montana ?

It is far too early to explain exactly the areas of liability. The following questions will need to be clarified and will be the subject of specific pages to the extent that this information becomes public:

• If the source of a pyrotechnic device is confirmed, did the operator have the right to use it? In that location? Had he properly trained his employees? Did he properly supervise his employees? Were the product usage instructions followed? Did an operating license potentially prohibit the use of this product in these places or under these conditions?
• Did the premises comply with applicable legislation, particularly the requirements of fire prevention legislation and its consequences? If they were renovated, was the renovation properly authorized and the legislation applied?
• Did the authorities properly apply the legal framework, particularly the LPIEN?