|
|
Forums:
Climbing Information:
Accident and Incident Analysis:
Re: [snoopy138] Broken spliced webbing,climbing accident, lawsuit:
Edit Log
|
|
sspssp
Jul 5, 2011, 8:36 PM
Views: 13254
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
snoopy138 wrote: sspssp wrote: snoopy138 wrote: j_ung wrote: snoopy138 wrote: and if it turns out your belay device or rope has a strange, not easily discoverable defect that causes what should be a 10 ft. fall on an otherwise safe sport climb to turn into a 50 ft. meatdecking? that's still the climbers fault? bullshit. what makes climbing gear different from every other manufactured piece of equipment that there's no duty on the manufacturer to not sell a defective product? The climber's fault? No. Is the climber responsible for the situation he or she is in? Yes. what makes climbing different from every other aspect of society? What makes climbing different is that it is a very dangerous activity and if manufactures were held to the same standard of care as say, automobiles, then they would probably stop making gear. Or rather, stop selling it in the USA. In general I am glad about this and I'm glad that it has usually been very hard for injured climbers to successfully sue someone when they get injured. driving is also a very dangerous activity. I think in most climbing cases, it's hard to identify whether the gear is actually defective (was a cam properly placed, was it shitty rock, did the climber expose a rope to chemicals, did the rope run over a sharp edge, etc.); but if there's a clear manufacturing defect, I have no idea why we should absolve the manufacturers of paying for the costs of their defective product. CCH was very fortunate nothing too serious happened as a result of their fucked-up aliens, but if it had (e.g., three successive aliens pulling apart causing the climber to deck), then they absolutely should have been held liable.
Driving isn't dangerous in the way that climbing is and driving accidents aren't caused by equipment failures (or only rarely).
Or take flying compared to rocket flight. If a plane crashes right after take off due to an engine failure, the engine manufacturer is going to be held liable.
If a rich tourist wants to be launched into outerspace and dies right after take-off, I don't think there is going to be any liability.
Climbing is still in the known to be dangerous category where equipment failure is a known and accepted risk.
I still don't see why you have to splice webbing together to wrap it on a spool.
And I agree that CCH probably should have been held liable. It is probably better overall for the sport that there were not directly held liable. Their QC problems probably contributed to them going out of business.
(This post was edited by sspssp on Jul 5, 2011, 8:39 PM)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by sspssp
() on Jul 5, 2011, 8:36 PM
|
|
Post edited by sspssp
() on Jul 5, 2011, 8:38 PM
|
|
Post edited by sspssp
() on Jul 5, 2011, 8:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
