New Zealand Judge to Decide on Volcano Tragedy Conviction Appeal of Whakaari Island Owners

[Social Media]

 

A New Zealand judge is set to determine whether the owners of Whakaari, the volcanic island where a tragic eruption in 2019 took the lives of 22 tourists and guides, were unjustly convicted. The three-day appeal hearing concluded Thursday, and Justice Simon Moore informed the High Court in Auckland that he would reach a decision by the end of the year.

 

The owners’ company, Whakaari Management, controlled by three brothers, was previously convicted for not ensuring visitor safety on the island. This March, the company was ordered to pay substantial fines and restitution to the victims, most of whom were U.S. and Australian tourists who had traveled to the island by cruise ship. Following the conviction, Whakaari Management quickly appealed, with the case’s primary question being whether the company had a legal responsibility for visitor safety under New Zealand’s workplace health and safety laws.

 

The case has spurred a debate on whether Whakaari Management should have been held accountable as an authority responsible for workplace safety on the island, as argued by New Zealand’s workplace regulator. Lawyers representing the regulator stated that Whakaari Management’s entire business model revolved around granting access to a naturally hazardous location, charging permit fees to tourists and scientific groups alike. As the prosecutor Kirsty McDonald argued in court, the company “had a duty to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the workplace it was granting access to was without risks to the health and safety of any person.” Prosecutors contended that the company should have carried out risk assessments to determine whether it was even safe for tourists to be allowed on the island.

 

However, attorneys for Whakaari Management have countered that the company acted only as a landlord, merely granting access to Whakaari, rather than managing or supervising the tours themselves. Rachael Reed, a lawyer representing the company, argued, “the company did not run, direct or supervise the tours,” maintaining that responsibility for visitor safety lay with the tour operators, not with Whakaari Management. The legal team further emphasized that the conviction, if upheld, could have significant implications on how other landowners allow public access to natural sites across New Zealand. They argued that a precedent set by this case could discourage landowners from allowing visitors to areas with natural hazards, impacting the nation’s adventure tourism industry.

 

Before the 2019 eruption, Whakaari—also known as White Island—was a favored tourist destination, reachable by boat or helicopter from the Bay of Plenty on New Zealand’s North Island. On the fateful December day, 47 individuals, including tourists and tour guides, were present on the island when superheated steam erupted from the volcano. Some visitors were killed instantly, while others sustained severe burns. Survivors recounted in court that they had been unaware of the risks posed by the active volcano and were not provided with any protective equipment. Many were wearing clothing that worsened the impact of the burns they suffered.

 

Judge Evangelos Thomas, who initially ruled on the case, noted in his judgment that Whakaari Management failed to undertake a necessary risk assessment, despite a prior eruption on the island three years earlier. He ruled that the company should have sought expert guidance to evaluate the dangers and, based on that advice, either restricted public access entirely or implemented rigorous safety controls.

 

In 2023, New Zealand’s workplace safety regulator charged 13 entities and individuals, including Whakaari Management, for safety lapses related to the eruption. Among these were helicopter and boat tour operators, a scenic flight operator, and the scientific agency GNS Science. Several of the parties accepted their charges, while others, including Whakaari Management, contested them. Some charges were subsequently dropped.

 

The appeal’s outcome is eagerly awaited, with Justice Moore reserving his decision, yet refraining from committing to a specific date. The result could have profound effects on the responsibilities of companies offering access to natural attractions, potentially reshaping the regulatory landscape for adventure tourism in New Zealand.

 

Original Court case Conviction

 

Based on a report by AP 2024-11-02

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Sooo, adventure tourists going to a live volcano have to be "protected" from any possible harm. What BS!

NZ has IMO become the ultimate nanny state- where did it all go so wrong?

 

IMO it comes down to whether the tourists were advised of the risks and signed that they accepted the risks. If they did, they have no right to expect protection from any and all risks, beyond reasonable precautions.

 

NZ used to be a country for real men, but that was long ago.

[pacovl46]

Sounds like the warnung labels on coffee cups they have to have on them in the US to avoid being sued when buyers spill it and burn themselves.

 

If you order hot coffee you know it's gonna be hot, how they could ever successfully sue is a mystery to me.

 

Likewise, if you visit an island that has an active volcano on it you have to reckon with it erupting! It's common sense! 

[john donson]

act of god? dog? 

[Tug]

If that tour company dident have these Darwin Award wanna be tourists sign waver they are toast(no pun intended)irregardless my condolences to the bereaved and a hoped for speedy recovery for the survivors.

[Kiwiken]

23 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooo, adventure tourists going to a live volcano have to be "protected" from any possible harm. What BS!

NZ has IMO become the ultimate nanny state- where did it all go so wrong?

 

IMO it comes down to whether the tourists were advised of the risks and signed that they accepted the risks. If they did, they have no right to expect protection from any and all risks, beyond reasonable precautions.

 

NZ used to be a country for real men, but that was long ago.

This is just a Natural Outcome of the Health and safety Act 2015. Which are derived somewhat watered down from Australian Health and safety and UK Health and safety. If you think its is a Nany State why do we have 4 times more deaths from accidents than Australia.

Calculated risks Yes . But ignoring warning signs must have consequences.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

This is just a Natural Outcome of the Health and safety Act 2015. Which are derived somewhat watered down from Australian Health and safety and UK Health and safety. If you think its is a Nany State why do we have 4 times more deaths from accidents than Australia.

Calculated risks Yes . But ignoring warning signs must have consequences.

Perhaps we have 4 times as many stupid people. I see them every time I drive in the countryside. Townies that have no clue to drive at 100 KPH. They are just lucky that not many vehicles are on the roads or the death rate would be way higher.

 

The topic isn't about ignoring warning signs, it's about people willingly going to a known hazardous location, and the nanny state that wants to make us all a bunch of wooses, but can't even stop people killing their children.

[nauseus]

This is an active natural hazard with a recent history of eruption. There is no way to ensure visitor safety 100%. Pleasure tours should not have been promoted by the owners and not allowed by the NZ government. 

[kiwikeith]

White Island is always smoking, a time bomb it has always been, very popular to fish off, providing lots of King fish,

Thats what is used to be a fishing favorite but tours ashore never used to happen, its only natural that an active volcano can erupt anytime, I my myself thought that taking tours up to the crater were stupid and only for scientists.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

This is an active natural hazard with a recent history of eruption. There is no way to ensure visitor safety 100%. Pleasure tours should not have been promoted by the owners and not allowed by the NZ government. 

There is no such thing as guaranteed safety, especially when one's own family may kill one. The nanny state is doing it's best to emasculate us all, but so far only partially succeeding.

People like Hillary must be spinning in their graves to see what has happened to NZ.

The trips to White Island were adventure tours, and as such were obviously hazardous. As I said before, it comes down to if customers were advised of the risk, and signed to say that they were.

Obviously, if the risks were not stated prior to the tour and nothing was signed, there is fault on the organisation's part.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, kiwikeith said:

White Island is always smoking, a time bomb it has always been, very popular to fish off, providing lots of King fish,

Thats what is used to be a fishing favorite but tours ashore never used to happen, its only natural that an active volcano can erupt anytime, I my myself thought that taking tours up to the crater were stupid and only for scientists.

Errrr, what about that other active volcano, the one where thousands of people go skiing every winter?

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

This is an active natural hazard with a recent history of eruption. There is no way to ensure visitor safety 100%. Pleasure tours should not have been promoted by the owners and not allowed by the NZ government. 

Are you saying that skiing should be banned on Mt Ruapehu then?

[kiwikeith]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Errrr, what about that other active volcano, the one where thousands of people go skiing every winter?

nowhere as active as white island and people dont go climbing up to the crater they ski away from the crater

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you saying that skiing should be banned on Mt Ruapehu then?

 

No.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/4/2024 at 3:17 PM, kiwikeith said:

nowhere as active as white island and people dont go climbing up to the crater they ski away from the crater

Ah, so it depends on one's opinion if an active volcano is dangerous or not? Noted.