What were the circumstances surrounding the 1960 workman’s compensation case at Pocono Highland Camp. How did the Pennsylvania Superior Court rule on the case of Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp. What legal principles were established regarding worker’s compensation claims for employees residing on premises.
The Incident at Pocono Highland Camp
In September 1960, a tragic incident occurred at Pocono Highland Camp in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. This boys’ summer camp, which typically operated during July and August, was in its post-season period. On September 13, a fire broke out in the administration building around 2:00 AM, resulting in the death of a maintenance worker named Barrick from asphyxiation.
The circumstances surrounding this incident raised important questions about worker’s compensation and the extent of an employer’s liability for incidents occurring on their premises outside of typical working hours. These questions would ultimately be addressed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp.
Employment Status and Conditions at the Time of the Incident
To understand the legal implications of this case, it’s crucial to examine the employment conditions at Pocono Highland Camp at the time of the incident:
- The regular camp season had ended, but some employees continued to work on clean-up tasks.
- Employees were paid the same weekly wage as during the camp season.
- Instead of receiving meals at the camp, employees were purchasing their own food from local stores.
- Some employees, including the deceased, were living in the camp’s administration building.
On the day before the fire, September 12, employees had stopped work around 10:00 AM due to inclement weather. The deceased had left the camp for personal business and returned to his room in the administration building around midnight, approximately two hours before the fire started.
Conflicting Testimony on Employee Obligations
A key point of contention in this case was whether employees were required to remain on the camp premises during off-hours. Witness testimonies provided conflicting information:
Testimony Supporting On-Call Status:
- Alex Washeleski, a fellow employee, initially stated that workers were required to remain on premises and were subject to call “at any time of the day.”
- Andrew Dippre, the foreman, suggested that if there was a need for cleaning or maintenance after 4:30 PM, the deceased would have worked those hours.
Testimony Against On-Call Status:
- Washeleski later testified that after clocking out, Barrick was not due back until 8 AM the next day and was free to go where he pleased.
- Dippre also stated that the deceased was not required to be at the camp at night and could go wherever he wanted.
- Earl Weinberg, the camp owner, testified that the deceased was not required to live at the camp and was not on call at any time.
- Raymond Jacobs, another employee, corroborated that they were not required to be back at the camp until 8 AM the following morning.
Initial Ruling and Appeal Process
Given the conflicting testimony, the case went through several stages of legal review:
- The initial referee made an award in favor of the claimant (presumably Barrick’s family or estate).
- The referee made six findings of fact and two conclusions of law but did not specifically address whether the deceased was required to be on the premises at the time of his death.
- Upon appeal, the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which is the ultimate fact-finding body in such cases, vacated the award and dismissed the claim.
- The board kept the original six findings of fact but added two additional findings and substituted a different conclusion of law.
Legal Framework: Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act
The case hinged on the interpretation of Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, as amended. This section defines “injury by an accident in the course of employment” to include:
“…all injuries caused by the condition of the premises … sustained by the employe, who … is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer …, the employe’s presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.”
This definition raises several questions: Was Barrick’s presence on the premises required by the nature of his employment? Did the fact that he was living in the administration building constitute a requirement of his job?
Legal Principles in Reviewing Workmen’s Compensation Cases
The Superior Court’s review of this case was guided by several established legal principles:
- When compensation authorities refuse to find facts in favor of the party with the burden of proof, the question on review is not whether the evidence would sustain such a finding.
- Instead, the review focuses on whether the board’s findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law.
- The findings must be sustainable without a capricious disregard of competent evidence.
- While the board is the ultimate arbiter of facts, and its findings are binding if supported by competent evidence, appellate courts can review questions of law.
- This includes whether the law has been properly applied to the facts.
- If the facts permit only one legitimate inference, the question becomes one of law.
Implications for Future Worker’s Compensation Cases
The Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case highlights several important considerations for both employers and employees regarding worker’s compensation claims:
Clear Definition of Work Hours and On-Call Status
How can employers clearly define work hours and on-call status for employees who live on premises? This case underscores the importance of having clear, written policies regarding when employees are considered to be “on the job,” especially in situations where they reside at the workplace.
Documentation of Employee Requirements
What steps should employers take to document whether employees are required to be on premises during off-hours? The conflicting testimony in this case demonstrates the need for clear documentation of employee obligations and expectations.
Interpretation of “Course of Employment”
How broadly should courts interpret the phrase “in the course of employment” when it comes to incidents occurring on employer premises? This case raises questions about the extent of an employer’s liability for accidents that occur outside of regular working hours but on company property.
Balancing Employee Rights and Employer Liability
What is the appropriate balance between protecting employees’ rights to compensation for work-related injuries and limiting employers’ liability for incidents that occur during personal time? The Barrick case highlights the complex interplay between these competing interests.
Importance of Consistent Testimony
How can employers ensure consistency in employee testimonies during worker’s compensation cases? The conflicting statements from witnesses in this case underscore the importance of clear communication and documentation of workplace policies.
The Barrick v. Pocono Highland Camp case serves as an important precedent in Pennsylvania worker’s compensation law, particularly for situations involving employees who live on their employer’s premises. It highlights the need for clear policies, consistent communication, and thorough documentation to avoid ambiguity in determining liability for workplace incidents.
: 1966 :: Pennsylvania Superior Court Decisions :: Pennsylvania Case Law :: Pennsylvania Law :: US Law :: Justia
208 Pa. Superior Ct. 72 (1966)
Barrick, Appellant,
v.
Pocono Highland Camp.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 14, 1966.
June 17, 1966.
Before ERVIN, P.J., WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, and SPAULDING, JJ.
*73 Harry B. Goldberg, with him Ronald M. Katzman, and Goldberg, Evans & Katzman, for appellant.
Christian S. Erb, Jr., with him Metzger, Wickersham & Knauss, for appellee.
OPINION BY ERVIN, P.J., June 17, 1966:
This is a workmen’s compensation case. The facts as stated in the opinion of Judge SHELLEY of the court below are as follows: “It appears that the decedent was a maintenance worker at Pocono Highland Camp in Monroe County, Pennsylvania. This was a boys’ camp that operated during the months of July and August of 1960. During the season, employees were paid a weekly wage, together with food and board.
At the time of the accident on September 13, 1960, the camp season had ended. The employees were living in the administration building and purchased their food at a local grocery store. They continued at the same wage and did clean up work. The employees, including the decedent, quit work on September 12, 1960 at about 10:00 a.m. because of inclement weather. The decedent left the camp, went to town on personal business and, although there is not a complete accounting of his time, it is conceded that he did not work again for his employer. He returned to his room in the administration building about midnight. A fire broke out about 2:00 a.m., which resulted in the decedent’s death from asphyxiation.”
There was a conflict of evidence as to whether or not the decedent was required to be on the premises at the time of the fire. On the one hand, Alex Washeleski, a fellow-employe, testified on direct examination that they are required to remain on the premises and were *74 subject to call “at any time of the day.
” On cross-examination, however, he testified that after punching out the time clock Barrick was not due back to work until 8 a.m. the next morning and that he was free to go where he pleased. Andrew Dippre, the foreman, testified that the decedent slept at the camp but that he was not required to be there at night, could go wherever he wanted and was not on call at night. On the other hand, he testified that if there was a need for cleaning up or maintenance after 4:30 p.m., the decedent would have worked at those hours.
Earl Weinberg, the owner of the camp, testified that the decedent was not required to live at the camp, could live where he desired and was not on call at any time. Raymond Jacobs, another fellow-employe, stated that they were not required to be back at the camp again until the following morning at 8 a.m. and testified to the decedent’s movements subsequent to his leaving camp until about midnight.
With this conflicting testimony the referee made an award in favor of the claimant.
He made six findings of fact and two conclusions of law but made no specific finding as to whether or not the decedent was required to be on the premises of his employer at the time of his death. Upon appeal, the board, which is the ultimate fact finding body, vacated the award and dismissed the claim. It did not disturb the six findings of fact but added two additional findings[1] and substituted a different conclusion of law.[2]
*75 Section 301(c) of The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, reads: “The term `injury by an accident in the course of his employment,’ as used in this article . . . shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises . . . sustained by the employe, who . . . is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer . . ., the employe’s presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.”
It is well established that where the compensation authorities refuse to find facts in favor of the party having the burden of proof, the question on review is not whether the evidence would sustain such a finding but whether the board’s findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence: Newman v.
Congregation of Mercy and Truth, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 350, 175 A.2d 160; Dandy v. Glaze, 197 Pa. Superior Ct 218. 177 A.2d 157.
It is also well established that “While the board is the ultimate arbiter of the facts and its findings are binding on appeal if supported by competent evidence, the appellate court may review questions of law, including whether the law has been properly applied to the facts: Ede v. Ruhe Motor Corp., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 603, 136 A.2d 151. If the facts permit of but one legitimate inference, the question becomes one of law [citing cases].”: Adams v. Dunn, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 319, at 323, 162 A.2d 42.
In the present case it is undenied that the decedent was upon the premises of the employer at the time of his death. However, whether his presence was “required by the nature of his employment” was a controverted question. The board decided that question in favor of the defendant and, since it can be sustained *76 without a capricious disregard of competent evidence, we are bound by it.
The claimant cites the cases of Delbene v. Pine, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 353, 19 A.2d 533; Werner v. Allegheny County, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 10, 33 A.2d 451; Wolsko v. American Bridge Co., 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 339, 44 A.2d 873; Weiss v. Friedman’s Hotel, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 98, 106 A.2d 867; and Dupree v. Barney, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 331, 163 A.2d 901, in all of which the present question was involved and in all of which the claimant recovered an award. However, in all of them except the Wolsko case there was a definite finding that the employe was required to live on the premises or was on call at all times. In the Wolsko case the deceased’s employment was to commence at 5 p.m. and the accident occurred at 4:45 p.m. We said: “Deceased was injured about 15 minutes before his day’s work was to begin. It was entirely proper for deceased to be on the premises of his employer a reasonable length of time before the hour fixed for him to commence his duties.”
On the other hand, the appellee relies on the case of Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co.
v. Fidelity Trust Co., 149 Pa. Superior Ct. 444, 27 A.2d 445. In that case the deceased was the janitor for an apartment house. He was paid $50.00 a month less $10.00 rent for his living quarters, which were over the garage sixty feet in the rear of the main apartment building. When the furnace was not operating he was free to leave from 7 p.m. until 7 a.m. During the evening of September 10, 1937 he entertained friends in his apartment and then went for an automobile ride with them. They returned at 1:30 a.m. to his quarters. The party broke up at about 2:15 a.m. A fire occurred at 4 a.m. and he was burned to death. The referee disallowed compensation, holding that he was not in the course of his employment. The board substituted findings and held *77 he was in the course of employment because he was subject to call at any time. The court of common pleas sustained the board. However, we reversed, holding that there was no evidence to support the board’s finding that he was on 24-hour duty.
We said, at page 447: “Whether deceased met death in the course of his employment is a question of law for the courts: Lewis v. Capital Bakers, Inc. et al., 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 171, 18 A.2d 883; Strunk v. E.D. Huffman & Sons, 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 429, 19 A.2d 539. Even if we assume, as the appellee contends, that the deceased’s apartment was a part of the employer’s premises within the meaning of that term used in our compensation act [compare Brown v. Elks’ Club No. 123, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 226, 172 A. 408; Dunphy v. Augustinian College of Villanova et al., 129 Pa. Superior Ct. 262, 195 A. 782; and Tappato et al. v. Teplick & Eisenberg Co. et al., 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 231, 2 A.2d 545] there is no evidence to support the board’s finding that deceased was on 24 hour duty subject to call at any time when he died thus warranting the conclusion that he was in the course of his employment at the time of his death. The proof is directly to the contrary. When the furnace was not in operation Ormes’ hours of employment in no instance extended beyond 9:00 P.
M. Furthermore, on the evening and early morning in question he undoubtedly removed himself from the course of his employment in acting as host to a drinking party which had nothing whatever to do with his usual employment, being wholly foreign thereto. The fact that he was found fatally burned by a fire, probably of accidental origin, in his home located on his employer’s premises did not warrant the conclusion that he met his death in the course of his employment. This is not a case where an employee after performing his usual duties was found dead on his employer’s premises under unexplained circumstances.”
*78 We agree that the facts in the present case are so similar that a similar result must follow.
Order affirmed.
NOTES
[1] “Seventh: That the deceased, William L. Barrick, was not required to be on the premises of his employer at the time of his death.
“Eighth: That the deceased, William L. Barrick, was not engaged in the course of his employment at the time of his death.
“
[2] “Second: Since the death of the decedent was not a direct result of an injury which occurred in the course of his employment with the defendant the claimant is not entitled to recover compensation as provided by the Act.”
Backpacking and Primitive Camping
Primitive camping, also sometimes referred to as backpacking, is a true wilderness camping experience. There are no modern conveniences such as bathroom and shower facilities. You pack in what you need to camp for the night.
To primitive camp in state forests or parks, you must:
Obtain a camping permit if staying more than one night in an area in a state forest
Make a reservation for a trail shelter in a state park
While primitive camping in state forests and parks, please practice the
Leave No Trace guidelines.
Primitive Camping in State Forests
Primitive camping can take different forms but is always a true wilderness camping experience.
Enjoy the solitude and tranquility of staying overnight in a state forest; and with 2.2-million acres of land and more than 5,000 miles of trails, outdoor enthusiasts find endless opportunities for this activity.
There are no modern conveniences and no vehicle access, so all equipment is carried by you.
Trailside Camping in State Forests
Trailside camping (backpacking) is the most popular form of primitive camping and is often done along one of the
18 State Forest Hiking Trails. Many other local trails can also be used to form unique and adventurous routes.
Many State Forest Hiking Trails require multiple nights, hiking from campsite to campsite in order to complete, but the abundance of connector trails also offer shorter hikes for overnight trips.
Trailside camping is part of an overall backcountry travel experience. It involves hiking far from nearby buildings, roads, and trailheads where you will find no modern conveniences or campsite improvements.
Those who are trailside camping are often referred to as backpackers, many of whom utilize tents; however, hammocks, bivy sacks, and other equipment are becoming increasingly popular. No matter your preference, be sure to be fully prepared with everything you’ll need to spend a night in the woods away from your vehicle.
Beyond just the traditional, trailside backpacking, primitive camping includes overnight camping where all equipment is transported by other non-motorized vehicle methods, including watercraft, bicycle, or horse.
A motorized vehicle is not located near or part of the camping experience. Bicycle users and horseback riders may not be permitted on some trails; and there may be unique camping regulations for these uses, so remember to check with the state forest district office.
Primitive Camping Guidelines in State Forests
Backpack campers are permitted to camp in most areas of the forest without a permit if staying no more than one night in any location.
Backpackers may camp overnight anywhere except:
- In designated Natural Areas
- Within 200 feet of a forest road
- Within 25 feet of a trail
- Within 100 feet of a stream or any open water
See the DCNR Bureau of Forestry’s
Motorized and Primitive Camping Guidelines and Ethics (PDF) for additional requirements when camping in state forests.
Primitive Group Camping in State Forests
If you would like to camp in a group of more than 10 people, a Letter of Authorization must first be obtained from the
state forest district office where your group would like to stay. There are some sensitive areas in state forests where the landscape cannot sustain larger groups.
Primitive Camping Permits in State Forests
Remember, if you are camping close enough to your vehicle to access it to store gear and supplies, you are not primitive camping, but are
motorized, roadside camping.
A permit and fee is always required for motorized, roadside camping and can only be done at designated sites.
Please plan appropriately.
There is no fee for a state forest primitive camping permit. Primitive campers spending no more than one night at a campsite do not need a camping permit; however, a free camping permit is required if:
You desire an emergency point-of-contact.
You stay at a campsite more than one night.
You stay at a campsite designated “permit required.”
A campfire is desired during spring wildfire season — you must obtain permission from the state forest to have a campfire from March 1 through May 25; no campfires are permitted when the state forest district forester determines the forest fire danger to be high, very high, or extreme.
You camp using a vehicle for storage or transportation.
You camp within the Pine Creek Gorge along the Pine Creek Rail Trail in Tiadaghton or Tioga State Forests.
To request a free, state forest primitive camping permit, please contact the
state forest district office for where you are planning to camp.
Primitive Camping in State Parks
Hiking in and putting up a tent where you choose, is NOT permitted in Pennsylvania state parks. All camping must be in a designated camping area and on designated sites. Many Pennsylvania state park campgrounds have walk-in sites which are for tents only and are more private than campsites with a paved camping pad.
Some parks have backpacking trailside shelters or sites, which can be in very remote areas, but visitors still must camp in designated areas.
Currently, there are five state parks that allow backpacking and overnight hikes:
Laurel Ridge
Ohiopyle
Moraine
Oil Creek
Raccoon Creek
These parks provide backpacking trails with overnight trailside shelters or sites. You must pre-register to hike and camp overnight at these state parks.
Backpacking Reservations at State Parks
Backpackers can obtain a camping permit for these parks at the
Pennsylvania state parks reservation website or by calling the specific park office during business hours.
If making an online backpacking reservation, in the “Where” field, enter the name of the state park you are interested in. In the “Interested in” field, select “Permits & Wilderness” from the dropdown menu.
Laurel Ridge State Park, Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail
Trail mileage within park: 70 miles
Total trail mileage: 70 miles
Number of overnight sites: 8
Number of shelters per site: 5
Number of tent spaces per site: 25
Amenities available: firewood, fireplaces, fire rings, and pit toilets
Amenities not available: check in at park office for availability of water
Pets allowed: Yes
Reserve sites: up to 11 months in advance
Ohiopyle State Park, Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail
Ohiopyle is the southern entrance to the Laurel Highlands Hiking Trail
Moraine State Park, North Country National Scenic Trail
Trail mileage within McConnells Mill, Moraine, and Jennings: 25.
9 milesTrail mileage within Moraine: 13.9 miles
Total trail mileage: 4,600 miles
Number of overnight sites: 1 (Moraine State Park)
Number of shelters per site: 3
Number of tent spaces per site: 0
Amenities available: restroom and fire ring
Amenities not available: firewood and water
Pets allowed: Yes
Reserve sites: up to 11 months in advance
9 milesOil Creek State Park, Oil Creek/Gerard Hiking Trail
Trail mileage within park: 36 miles
Total trail mileage: 36 miles
Number of overnight sites: 2
Number of shelters per site: 6
Number of tent spaces per site: spaces are available
Amenities available: water (Seasonal April 1 to November 1), firewood (when available), restrooms, picnic table, and fireplaces
Pets allowed: Yes
Reserve sites: up to 11 months in advance
Raccoon Creek State Park
Backpacking trail loop mileage within park: 44 miles
Number of overnight sites: 2
Number of shelters per site: 5
Number of tent spaces per site: 5
Amenities available: water and pit latrines/port-a-johns available 1/4-mile from campsite, fire ring
Amenities not available: firewood (may be purchased at park office)
Pets allowed: Yes
Reserve sites: up to 11 months in advance
Reservation Changes and Cancellations
Cancellations and changes can be handled online under “My Account” or by calling the call center.
Any cancellation or change on the day of arrival must be made through the state park where the reservation occurs.
Please see state park’s
reservation cancellation and change policy for additional information about cancelling or changing reservations and associated fees.
“Pious Smiles” – Summer at St. Seraphim’s Camp
I decided to come out of my hiding place because I thought the last thing these poor girls needed was to run into a strange man with a camera who was filming them from behind bushes. We greeted each other with mutual curiosity, wondering what each of us was doing in this lost place. I explained to them that I was one of the diocesan photographers and asked if I could take some pictures for an article I was writing about the camp. I asked them to mind their own business while pretending I wasn’t there. They gladly agreed and continued walking towards the river. What happened next, I did not expect at all.
My first thought was that these girls went down to the river for one last time to socialize and enjoy nature before returning home the next day.
What else would a group of teenagers at summer camp be doing on a beautiful Saturday afternoon? When I was looking for the right place to take the best photo, I noticed that they were not going to waste time talking and relaxing. They came here to pray. They stood in front of God’s creation the way they stand in front of an icon when they read prayers before communion, each time stopping, passing the prayer book to another so that everyone could read the prayers.
After taking a few photographs, I stood in silence for a while, and all I could only think about was a small passage that I had recently read in a book by my ever-memorable grandfather, Protopresbyter Valery Lukyanov. These words remained in my mind for several weeks, but, being in this deserted place, I repeated them to myself, as if revealing the picture that stood before my eyes.
“Nature, like the whole of God’s world, is an open book of innumerable miracles of world-building, a book of inspiration and compunction in front of these miracles, it gives the deepest revelations in the light of uninterrupted renewal and rebirth, as, indeed, the book of the Wisdom of God, who did all ‘(Ps 103:24) Nature is the book of life: every blade of grass and grass, every creature in its breath ‘praise the Lord’.
0003
And if nature, as a Divine world order, reveals the wondrous and wonderful manifestations of this Wisdom, then every sensitive person, placed by the Providence of God on the dominion of the created world, in the beauty of nature should feel a special tenderness and irresistible desire for prayerful relationship with your Creator and Provider. Away from worldly vanities that devastate the soul, from human vanity, closer to the inspiring and pacifying nature of God!” (“Joy in the Lord, p. 30).
This is exactly what St. Seraphim’s camp gives our children – an opportunity to get away from “spiritually devastating worldliness and the pursuit of human vanity.” This gives our clergy and children the opportunity to spend time together in the spirit of brotherly love, surrounded by the majesty and beauty of God’s world. Seeing how these three girls connect with God through nature and prayer, I became convinced that the camp of St. Seraphim is not only growing physically, but also spiritually .
***
Mountain camp: hiking with accommodation at the camp site
Mountain camp: hiking with accommodation in a camp site | Prices and routes for active recreation
Summer has come! It’s time to go to the mountain camp! Now everyone can visit the heart of real mountains ! With any level of physical fitness!
But this does not mean that the mountain camp is easy! This is also a GO! A hike in which we live at the camp site and every day we walk lightly through the picturesque surroundings: we climb the peaks, make our way along mountain paths to waterfalls, admire canyons and gorges.
We have easier and really physically difficult programs in the mountains of the Caucasus, Crimea, Montenegro and in the Khibiny .
Mountain camp is:
- comfortable accommodation in a hotel or camp site;
- going light to the mountains, to waterfalls, caves and other most remarkable places;
- clean air and always amazing views;
- a company of people of different ages, but the same in spirit, here it is always fun and friendly ;
- awesome photos! You can even take a dress with you for a photo shoot;
- not a resort! This is the REAL HIKING! Only more comfortable.
Our mountain camps are the perfect getaway for friends! For more fun, take a friend with you! Sign up soon, the adventure is ahead!
Expand
↓
- Timing
- Photo / Video
- Question / Answer
- Reviews
Found 75 trips
Travel | Calendar of dates
Caucasus
8 days
The gray-haired old man Dombai and children
- + 3 more terms
More details
Caucasus
7 daysMountain camp in Mezmai [Caucasus]
- + 4 more terms
More details
Kola
7 daysMountain camp in Khibiny
- + 7 more terms
More details
Caucasus
7 daysMountain camp in the Chegem Gorge (Kabardino-Balkaria)
- Difficulty:
- Cost: dated 40 200 ₽
9000-July 22 July 22
+ 4 more termsMore details
Altai
13 daysTourist camp in Altai for children and their parents (reconnaissance)
- Difficulty:
- Cost: from 54 600 ₽
July 17 – 29
+ 1 more termRead more
Siberia
7 daysPearl of the Sayan: mountain camp in Ergaki
- + 2 more terms
More details
Serbia
8 daysGreat mountain region: nature of western Serbia (comfort tour to Tara National Park)
- Difficulty:
- Cost: from 630 €
July 23 – 30
+ 6 more termsRead more
North Ossetia
7 daysMountain camp in Digoria (North Ossetia)
- + 9 more terms
Read more
Caucasus
8 daysBezengi mountain paths with children
- Difficulty:
- Price: from 34 300 ₽
July 30 – August 6
More details
Kabardino-Balkaria
7 daysChegem High Mountain National Reserve
- + 8 more terms
More details
Caucasus
7 daysMountain camp in Dombai [Caucasus]
- Difficulty:
- Cost: from 34 900 ₽
August 6 – 12
+ 9 more termsRead more
Caucasus
6 daysMountain Camp in the Elbrus region (active program with hotel accommodation)
- Difficulty:
- Cost: from 37 200 ₽
August 6 – 11
+ 19 more termsMore details
Show more 002 This site uses cookies to give you the best experience.
- + 7 more terms
- + 4 more terms
