A week ago, an unimaginable tragedy occurred in Crans-Montana in the canton of Valais. Forty young people tragically lost their lives, and 116 people—most of them seriously injured—are still fighting for their lives. The suffering experienced by those affected and their relatives cannot be put into words. We are deeply saddened by this tragedy.

At the same time, there is a public need for an assessment of the legal questions that have arisen. These are briefly summarized below:

• Criminal proceedings

The criminal proceedings will clarify whether the bar operators can be accused of criminally relevant misconduct. In this context, fire safety expert reports will also provide information on the condition and suitability of the soundproofing used in assembly rooms. According to the current information, representatives of the municipality are not the subject of criminal proceedings.

• Civil law claims

A criminal conviction is not strictly required to pursue civil claims. Although civil claims can in principle also be asserted within criminal proceedings, such claims are usually referred by the criminal court to the civil courts. In any case, most civil law claims cannot yet be quantified. In the case of injured persons, this requires a stable state of health, which may take a long time to reach.

• Coverage limit

Even if those affected by the tragedy succeed with their claims, this does not necessarily mean that they will actually be fully compensated. If the bar operators have business liability insurance, it must be assumed—given an expected total loss in the hundreds of millions—that the coverage limit will be far from sufficient for such a major incident. Although the operators are liable with all of their private assets, it is unlikely that these assets would significantly change the situation of insufficient coverage.

• State liability

The municipality has admitted that it inadequately monitored fire safety regulations and may not have enforced them sufficiently. According to current information, a degree of shared responsibility on the part of the municipality is therefore evident. While it is conceivable that liability could be excluded in the event of gross negligence by a third party—here, the bar operators—fire safety inspections are among the core responsibilities of the municipality of Crans-Montana. Based on all information currently available, the municipality can therefore also be accused of fault, making it unlikely that they could successfully be exonerated.

Should it turn out that the insurance coverage is insufficient and the private assets of the bar operators do not suffice, the municipality must be held liable under state liability law. Unlike private insurance, state liability is not subject to an upper financial limit.

• Joint and several liability

As a rule, multiple parties responsible for damage are jointly and severally liable toward the injured party. Accordingly, a person affected by the fire disaster—whether a severely injured individual or a relative—may in principle claim the full amount from any one of the liable parties.

• Fund

In view of the expected lengthy and burdensome court proceedings, we support the call for an extraordinary fund that can compensate victims quickly and without excessive bureaucracy. In comparable cases, extraordinary funds have been established that enabled rapid and uncomplicated assistance (for example, after the terrorist attack in Luxor on 17 November 1997, the attack on the Zug cantonal parliament on 27 September 2001, and the asbestos victims’ fund). These led to a significant relief for the victims.