Duty of Care in the Outdoors: Legal Liability for Leading Groups in Scotland

The mountains, rivers, and coasts of Scotland offer unparalleled opportunities for adventure. But with the fun of leading a group on a run, a paddleboard, or a mountain expedition comes a profound legal responsibility. When an excursion ends in tragedy, the law will scrutinise the decisions made and the duties owed. This article examines the principles of delictual liability under Scots law in the context of outdoor activities, drawing on two tragic incidents: the ongoing trial in Austria of a climber for the death of his girlfriend on the Grossglockner, and the haunting case of four paddleboarders who died at Haverfordwest in Wales. Crucially, it explores the fundamental difference in legal responsibility between a paid professional and a group of friends.

The Grossglockner Trial: When Does a Friend Become a "Guide"?

In Austria, a case is underway that has sent shockwaves through the global mountaineering community. A man, identified as Thomas P, is on trial for gross negligent manslaughter following the death of his girlfriend, Kerstin G, on Grossglockner, Austria's highest mountain, in January 2025 . The couple, attempting a challenging winter climb, became caught in stormy conditions. Prosecutors allege that Thomas P, as the more experienced climber, made a series of catastrophic errors. These included starting too late, failing to bring sufficient emergency equipment, allowing his girlfriend to use unsuitable footwear, and most critically, leaving her exhausted and unprotected near the summit while he went for help . She later died of hypothermia.

The core of the prosecution's case is that Thomas P, by virtue of his superior experience and his role in planning the tour, effectively functioned as the "responsible guide" . His lawyer, however, maintains it was a "tragic accident," a joint adventure planned by a couple who both felt sufficiently prepared .

This case starkly illustrates a principle that resonates strongly with Scots law: the assumption of responsibility. While this is a criminal trial under Austrian law, the question of civil liability for negligence (or delict) in Scotland would hinge on similar factors.

Delictual Liability in Scotland: The Duty of Care

In Scotland, the law of delict governs the civil wrong of negligence. To successfully claim damages, an injured party (or their family) must establish three things: first, that the defender owed them a duty of care; second, that the defender breached that duty by falling below the required standard of care; and third, that this breach caused the harm suffered.

The existence of a duty of care is often the central question in outdoor activity cases. The law does not expect us to be our brother's keeper in every social situation. However, a duty of care can be established in several ways, including where one person voluntarily assumes responsibility for another's safety.

This is precisely the legal argument at the heart of the Grossglockner tragedy. By planning the route, possessing greater experience, and leading the ascent, Thomas P may have implicitly assumed a duty of care towards his less-experienced partner . As one Austrian newspaper noted, a guilty verdict could represent a "paradigm shift" for mountain sports, clarifying the legal responsibilities that climbers have for one another . In Scotland, a similar analysis would apply. The court would examine the parties' relative experience, the nature of their relationship, and who was making the key decisions.

The Haverfordwest Tragedy: A Contrast in Paid and Social Duties

A clear contrast to the informal, though potentially duty-bound, relationship of the climbing couple can be found in the 2021 paddleboarding tragedy on the River Cleddau in Haverfordwest, Wales. The incident claimed the lives of Paul O'Dwyer, Andrea Powell, Morgan Rogers, and Nicola Wheatley . Initially reported as a tragic accident involving a group of friends, the subsequent police and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation revealed a very different picture.

The trip was organised by Nerys Lloyd, the owner and director of Salty Dog Co Ltd, a paddleboard business. On a day of severe flooding and weather warnings, Lloyd led a group onto a dangerously swollen river. She failed to conduct a risk assessment, gave no safety briefing, and led the group directly towards a hazardous weir. Four people were pulled over the weir and drowned .

In April 2025, Nerys Lloyd was jailed for ten and a half years after admitting the gross negligence manslaughter of the four victims . HSE Inspector Helen Turner stated that Lloyd was "solely responsible for the decision to enter the water... This was completely reckless and the risk of death was foreseeable" .

The Key Difference: Organiser vs. Friend

The Haverfordwest case provides a powerful counterpoint to the Grossglockner situation and clearly delineates the two tiers of responsibility.

1. The Professional Organiser (Paid Trip): Nerys Lloyd’s liability was clear and severe because she was acting in a professional capacity. As a business owner, she owed a formal, non-delegable duty of care to her clients. This duty is underpinned not only by the common law of negligence but also by statute, including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 . Clients place their trust and, essentially, their lives in the hands of a professional, paying for the assurance that the leader has the competence, training, and foresight to manage risk. Lloyd’s failures—lack of qualifications, ignoring weather warnings, failing to plan—represented a wholesale abandonment of this duty .

   
   

2. The Informal Group (Friends/Social Trip): In an informal group of friends, like the couple on Grossglockner, the existence and extent of a duty of care are far more nuanced. There is no automatic legal duty between friends embarking on a joint adventure. However, one can be created by their actions. As seen in the Scottish case Harrison v West of Scotland Kart Club, liability can arise not merely from a title (like "office bearer") but from "their knowledge and their de facto assumption of the responsibility for taking decisions relating to the safety" of others .

   
   

Therefore, in a group of friends running in the hills, if one person with significant experience takes control, plans the route, makes all the critical decisions about when to turn back, and the others rely on that expertise, that person may have assumed a duty of care. If they then make a reckless decision that leads to injury or death—such as ignoring obvious signs of avalanche risk or severe weather—they could, in theory, face a claim for damages under the law of delict. The standard of care expected of them would be that of a reasonably competent person undertaking that activity, given their professed experience.

For the occupier of land where these activities take place, a separate duty exists under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 to take reasonable care to see that a person on their premises does not suffer injury or damage . However, this does not extend to guarding against obvious risks inherent in the landscape, such as a cliff face or a river . The primary responsibility for safety in a hazardous adventure lies with the leader and the participants themselves.

Conclusion: The Weight of Responsibility

The tragic deaths at Haverfordwest and on the Grossglockner serve as sombre reminders of the weight carried by those who lead others into challenging environments. The law draws a clear, bright line for paid professionals: they operate within a stringent framework of health and safety law and face the most serious consequences, including imprisonment, for gross failures .

For friends and informal groups, the line is more blurred. While Scots law does not impose a duty of care on every member of a hillwalking party, it can and will find that such a duty has been assumed through conduct. By taking the lead, planning the route, and making safety-critical decisions, an individual can cross the line from being a mere participant to becoming a "responsible guide" in the eyes of the law. The Grossglockner trial may yet set a powerful precedent on this very point, reminding us all that with the lead climber's rope comes the inescapable knot of legal responsibility.