|
dynosore
Jun 20, 2007, 3:28 AM
Post #26 of 170
(5155 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
In reply to: Wrong. They certify as much as humanly possible, which under 3-sigma means about 99.6% of their product. FWIW, I don't believe CCH uses a 3Sig system.
We're not talking about a failure to meet 3 sigma limits here....we're talking about pieces failing at a small fraction of their stated rating. If a cam is rated for 10 kn but fails at 9.5kn, such is life. It should NEVER fail at 1 or 2kn, EVER! Crunch the numbers, if their process is "in control", that failure should NEVER happen, period. Yet is has several times. They should be making toasters, not life saving devices, if their knowledge of manufacturing processes is this poor.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 3:28 AM
Post #27 of 170
(5154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
medicus wrote: ja1484 wrote: There is no guarantee that any of your gear will hold when you fall on it. The guarantees you do have are thus: - The manufacturer has applied the quality control standards they say they have applied - The manufacturer has done everything they have said to ensure that your gear does hold And if the haven't really done everything they claimed to do...?
Then there is a fraud and liability issue to be adjudicated, possibly negligence, manslaughter, and other things as well depending on the circumstances.
Listen, I'm not a lawyer, but I've discussed this issue with a few I happen to know (and let me state for the record - not all of them are scum swilling leeches) enough to gather that, essentially, as long as the documentation states that you use the gear and climb at your own risk, you have assumed any liability and removed the manufacturer from it.
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 20, 2007, 3:34 AM
Post #28 of 170
(5139 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
My claim that they might not have done what was promised is due to the Souders Crack groundfall discussion. It appears that the cable was not inserted all the way in the stem, and CCH says they tensile test 100% of their cams post-recall. It would appear that the cam in the souders crack groundfall would have easily fallen apart if tensile testing had been done on that specific cam. Which would indicate that not 100% of their cams leaving their company have been tensile tested as their claim says. However, if the defect in the cam was strong enough for tensile testing, then I would change my position. It isn't certain what happened with the cam in Souders, but as I said, it would appear that a TT would have blown that cam apart easily, and so if that is true, CCH lied about tensile testing 100% of their cams leaving their factory.
So then, IF that is true, no, they have not done everything they claim to have done.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 3:34 AM
Post #29 of 170
(5138 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
dynosore wrote: We're not talking about a failure to meet 3 sigma limits here....we're talking about pieces failing at a small fraction of their stated rating. If a cam is rated for 10 kn but fails at 9.5kn, such is life. It should NEVER fail at 1 or 2kn, EVER! Crunch the numbers, if their process is "in control", that failure should NEVER happen, period. Yet is has several times. They should be making toasters, not life saving devices, if their knowledge of manufacturing processes is this poor.
You haven't done much in the way of statistics I take it?
You're trying to think in absolute terms on one hand, and then relative terms on the other hand. If you crunch the numbers, eventually it is a mathematical certainty that a cam will get through quality control and be primed to fail at 1 - 2kN.
Then, you look for the guarantee that this should never happen, ever, which is theoretically possible if you take into the account that that cam primed for failure is one out of millions, billions, or trillions made. In other words, if you consider the relative likelihood of this happening to you, it almost never will because of the low odds.
If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed. And here's the really scary part: The same goes for every other gear company out there, no matter how good their quality control process. Math is mean like that.
So which method of risk-assessment do you want to use? Relative, or absolute?
I'm going to try repeating this one more time, and hopefully it will sink in for some people:
- Climbing is not safe, and will never be guaranteed safe.
- Gear is not guaranteed not to fail.
- No one is making you climb. Accept the risk or get out of the game. Make your choice.
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Jun 20, 2007, 3:36 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Jun 20, 2007, 3:36 AM
Post #30 of 170
(5131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 2599
|
Generaly lawsuits suck but if you manufacture life support equiptment that falls apart under body weight you deserve to get sued. If i take a huge whip onto any gear and it fails so be it but if all i do is yell take and a little hang and that expensive sucker explodes we do have a serious fckn problem.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 3:44 AM
Post #31 of 170
(5116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ja1484 wrote: dynosore wrote: In reply to: If you can't take responsibility for your own actions Herein lies the problem. I'd be the last to sue but.....If I properly place an alien but deck because the cam fell apart, they SHOULD be sued. I paid good money for a device that they CERTIFY will hold a certain load, it sure better! Climbing is dangerous enough without having to wonder if your gear is going to spontaneously fall apart under minimal loads. We use good judgment to keep ourselves safe, but the underlying assumption is that our gear WILL perform as the manufacturer claims. Wrong. They certify as much as humanly possible, which under 3-sigma means about 99.6% of their product. FWIW, I don't believe CCH uses a 3Sig system. There is no guarantee that any of your gear will hold when you fall on it.
If a company uses a 3-sigma standard, you might have a 0.1% chance that your cam might fail at -3 sigma, the rated strength; however, you have, for all intents and purposes, a probability of absolute zero that it will fail at -6 sigma. That is, there is a tiny probability that a cam rated to say 2000 lb will fail at 1950 lb, but you should be assured that it won't fail say even 1850 lb, never mind several hundred pounds. In other words, a cam that fails at 1950 lb could still be consistent with the 2000-lb 3-sigma rating, but a cam that fails at much less than that cannot be, and the manufacturer has not lived up to its promise.
Moreover, if you think otherwise -- that there is 1 chance in a thousand that any piece of gear you buy might fall apart at load considerably below its rated strength -- and still climb, you either never push your limits, or you are insane.
Lawyers might be leeches, but at least they're smart enough to understand who is responsible if a climber relies on a 2000-lb rated piece of gear that falls apart under a load of a few hundred pounds.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 20, 2007, 3:53 AM
Post #32 of 170
(5106 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
Thanks Jay for that post. I was wondering about that. It just didn't seem correct to me. I had forgotten that the standard deviation could be smaller like that, so I didn't know how to make sense of that argument.
|
|
|
|
|
robdotcalm
Jun 20, 2007, 4:00 AM
Post #33 of 170
(5099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1027
|
yeckcir wrote:
«I'll be god damned if I'm gonna have to carry personal liability insurance to belay my friends, or get signed waivers if someone is going to climb on my rope and fall on my green alien.»
I have a personal-liability, umbrella policy on top of my home and car insurance that does indeed cover me if I’m sued by somebody who was climbing with me or beneath me or whatever. A climbing partner might not sue you, but one of their relatives might if the partner was injured or killed. The main point of the umbrella policy was to provide extra protection in general. It so happens that it covers climbing (which is nice).
Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Jun 20, 2007, 4:00 AM
Post #34 of 170
(5095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
jaydenn wrote: fulton wrote: patto wrote: Lawyers are a leech on society. Until you need one. No, no... They are still leaches even if you need one.
If you really need a lawyer, they are easy to find. They don't need to advertise to encourage litigation, instead of solving problems in a direct fashion.
Advertising, trying to convince people to sue a company because they would get money, is being a leech.
|
|
|
|
|
yekcir
Jun 20, 2007, 4:05 AM
Post #35 of 170
(5089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Posts: 69
|
From a legal standpoint, there are so many "if"s in this scenario with which any reputible defense counsel working for the general liability/products liability carrier representing CCH would and could fight these allegations tooth and nail. That's a given.
Should something like this go to a jury trial, a jury is not going to view rock climbing as a very favorable activity and will likewise view the plaintiff's claims in this light.
In Kentucky, where the accident happened, pure comparative negligence law applies which could put some value on a case like this, probably enough value for a PI attorney to pick it up and give it a go, and probably enough value for a GL carrier to put some settlement value on. Whether or not this has some value, legal standing or not, is pretty clear. Most likely, they would settle with the plaintiff pre-trial.
The issue is that this mentality is one which fuels our overly-litigious society. How about the lady who spilled McDonald's coffee on herself and got burned... or someone who trips over a wet floor sign and breaks their wrist. It happens constantly. It costs us all.
This is just the kind of thing that will open up pandora's box, and there will be a reaction. That reaction will negatively impact the freedom we each experience when we're on a climbing trip. Someone breaks their ankle on an access trail, suddenly the landowner cuts the trail off and there is no access. A bolt fails at the New, suddenly bolts are chopped, areas closed, and the first ascentionist is scrambling to defend herself. I short rope my friend due to a rope snag down low, he falls from the crux and breaks his foot. We can't talk or hang out until after he's done suing me. I don't want this, and unless we're each willing to accept that we're doing something inherently stupid when we should be at home watching television, it very well may become reality.
(This post was edited by yekcir on Jun 20, 2007, 4:14 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Jun 20, 2007, 4:23 AM
Post #36 of 170
(5059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
One complaint I have of the legal system is that a jury is supposed to be composed of a jury of peers. So a jury in this case should be composed of climbers, and ideally climbers who also have manufacturing experience. Of course we know none of this will happen.
There is a difference between awarding money to pay for the health care of a injured individual and awarding ridiculous additional millions for "punitive damages" to punish companies. The later is what will really cause all insurance to increase, and ultimately be paid for by all of us as consumers/climbers. (Not something you want non-climbers in charge of awarding)
As a previous poster stated, the best punishment is for us as consumers to not reward companies like this with our business. They will soon be gone, at no additional cost to us, and sell their designs to others in their going out of business sale.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jun 20, 2007, 4:44 AM
Post #37 of 170
(5037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
ja1484 wrote: dynosore wrote: In reply to: If you can't take responsibility for your own actions Herein lies the problem. I'd be the last to sue but.....If I properly place an alien but deck because the cam fell apart, they SHOULD be sued. I paid good money for a device that they CERTIFY will hold a certain load, it sure better! Climbing is dangerous enough without having to wonder if your gear is going to spontaneously fall apart under minimal loads. We use good judgment to keep ourselves safe, but the underlying assumption is that our gear WILL perform as the manufacturer claims. Wrong. They certify as much as humanly possible, which under 3-sigma means about 99.6% of their product. FWIW, I don't believe CCH uses a 3Sig system. There is no guarantee that any of your gear will hold when you fall on it. The guarantees you do have are thus: - The manufacturer has applied the quality control standards they say they have applied - The manufacturer has done everything they have said to ensure that your gear does hold Neither of these guarantees that your gear won't rip out or break during a fall. All it tells you is that the vast majority of the time, the gear doesn't do that. In other words, the odds are stacked in your favor. If you think the case is otherwise, you've misinterpreted the risks you are assuming when climbing and need to rethink them. John Long has always been very clear about this, and it's why I point people to his books: Your primary safety system in climbing is your acumen and judgment. Your backup safety system is the gear. If you're relying on the gear, you're relying upon a non-redundant safety system - jumping out of the plane with only your backup parachute, so to speak. People need to realize this: Every time you go climbing, EVERY TIME, NO EXCEPTIONS, you may die. You may not come back. You may never see your wife, girlfriend, dog, child, or favorite booty call again. Each climber has to decide what that means for themself. For my part, I'd rather die climbing, however remote the chances, than live without climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
chumbawumba
Jun 20, 2007, 5:22 AM
Post #38 of 170
(5007 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 44
|
It appears to be an ad for a plaintiff's firm. There are tons of other recalled items mentioned. They simply look up recent recalls and post them on their website hoping someone will respond. Nothing says that they are representing an injured person. Everybody needs to earn a buck.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 5:30 AM
Post #39 of 170
(5001 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ja1484 wrote: dynosore wrote: We're not talking about a failure to meet 3 sigma limits here....we're talking about pieces failing at a small fraction of their stated rating. If a cam is rated for 10 kn but fails at 9.5kn, such is life. It should NEVER fail at 1 or 2kn, EVER! Crunch the numbers, if their process is "in control", that failure should NEVER happen, period. Yet is has several times. They should be making toasters, not life saving devices, if their knowledge of manufacturing processes is this poor. You haven't done much in the way of statistics I take it? You're trying to think in absolute terms on one hand, and then relative terms on the other hand. If you crunch the numbers, eventually it is a mathematical certainty that a cam will get through quality control and be primed to fail at 1 - 2kN.
Dynosore is right. Under reasonable assumptions, no cam rated to 10 kN should ever fail at 1 or 2 kN.
Assume a cam with a 3-sigma rating of 10 kN has a normal distribution and a standard deviation of 0.5 kN. The mean strength of the cam is thus 11.5 kN, and 2 kN would be 19 standard deviations below the mean. The stat software on my computer puts the probability of -19 standard deviations to be on the order of 1 in 10^80. To put 10^80 in perspective, it is about 10 times greater than typical scientific estimates of the number of atoms in the Universe. Thus, 1 in 10^80 would be an event so rare that we would expect it never to occur in human history.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jun 20, 2007, 5:39 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Jun 20, 2007, 5:40 AM
Post #40 of 170
(4991 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
So what you are saying is... I STILL HAVE A CHANCE!
Hahaha, j/k.
19 standard deviations... geee... that's a huge deviation number.
|
|
|
|
|
eliclimbs
Jun 20, 2007, 5:46 AM
Post #41 of 170
(4985 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2006
Posts: 60
|
Thanks for the number crunching Jay. If any of my stuff failed under very small loads, I would certainly consider sueing. Statistically it shouldn't happen
If we couldn't trust safety equipment with our lifes, the face of climbing would change. There's a reason no one climbed much harder than 5.10 on hemp ropes.
Eli
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 20, 2007, 5:55 AM
Post #42 of 170
(4980 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
ja1484 wrote: dynosore wrote: We're not talking about a failure to meet 3 sigma limits here....we're talking about pieces failing at a small fraction of their stated rating. If a cam is rated for 10 kn but fails at 9.5kn, such is life. It should NEVER fail at 1 or 2kn, EVER! Crunch the numbers, if their process is "in control", that failure should NEVER happen, period. Yet is has several times. They should be making toasters, not life saving devices, if their knowledge of manufacturing processes is this poor. You haven't done much in the way of statistics I take it?
Just FYI: When posting on a public internet forum, nothing will make you look more stupid than accusing someone else of something that you yourself are guilty of.
ja1484 wrote: ...You're trying to think in absolute terms on one hand, and then relative terms on the other hand. If you crunch the numbers, eventually it is a mathematical certainty that a cam will get through quality control and be primed to fail at 1 - 2kN...
As Jay has already pointed out, you are completely wrong. For one thing, most gear testing (as at Black Diamond) is done at 50% of rated strength. So, it's fairly clear that a 10kN rated piece of gear that has been tested to 5kN, will never ever fail at 1 - 2kN. If you are claiming that the 50% strength testing itself has weakened the piece to that extent, the odds are far better that you will die from a meteor impact.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 20, 2007, 5:59 AM
Post #43 of 170
(4968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Yall make noises like Yvon Chouinard never got sued and had to divest himself of Black Diamond or risk losing his empire.
But other than that yall damn sure make a lot of knowledgable noises! Very impressive.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Jun 20, 2007, 6:04 AM
Post #44 of 170
(4965 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
1. until you have tested a set of devices you do not know the standard variation. it could be 10kg, it could be 150kg. 3-sigma statistics say that if the distribution follow a normal law, then 99,9% of the devices will be in the interval : average of the devices tested + or - 3 times the standard deviation
so if from a total population size, a sample of a certain size of devices breaks on average at 6,5 kn and the standard deviation is 100N, they is a high confidence that 99,9% of the remaining untested devices would be within 6,2 and 6,8 kn
2. the ad looks indeed more like a lawyer fishing for people having been hurt by a product which has been recalled rather than building up from one or more existing complaints.
3. what is really surprising in the US court system is not that people sue and get sued for about everything (including consequences of their own behavior) , it is the outstanding amount of damages awarded and the relatively cheap cost of litigation.
The amount of damages awarded has no longer any relationship to the losses (such as how much salary lost), costs endured to recover (such as health), and reasonable coverage.
It does seem that compensation for emotional duress is now the seen by jury to be a robin-hood way of getting even with large companies.
4. CCH seems to has manufactured faulty equipment and deserved to be sued. Imagine if Ford was selling cars that are sometimes welded properly, sometimes not welded.
5. The strong chance of huge compensation if found negligent is a consequence of the increasing misuse of the US law, could be sad to a few of CCH supporters, but should not stop someone from attempting to recoup their costs (current and future).
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 20, 2007, 6:13 AM
Post #45 of 170
(4956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
dingus wrote: Yall make noises like Yvon Chouinard never got sued and had to divest himself of Black Diamond or risk losing his empire. But other than that yall damn sure make a lot of knowledgable noises! Very impressive. DMT
I think we were discussing the relative merits of an action against CCH, as opposed to whether or not anyone can sue anyone else for any reason whatsoever. Clearly, the latter is well established.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jun 20, 2007, 6:13 AM
Post #46 of 170
(4955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
papounet wrote: 4. CCH seems to has manufactured faulty equipment and deserved to be sued. Imagine if Ford was selling cars that are sometimes welded properly, sometimes not welded.
Exactly.
Sure climbers should take responsibilies for the risks they take but one of the risks should not be that the gear they buy can't even hold body weight.
|
|
|
|
|
trapdoor
Jun 20, 2007, 6:31 AM
Post #47 of 170
(4942 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 183
|
When did we find out that CCH is quenching the braze joint?
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jun 20, 2007, 7:38 AM
Post #48 of 170
(4917 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
it is perfectly normal and acceptable in my mind for a lawsuit to be started. The lawyers are involved to make sure that the people involved act within the law, which is a complicated thing.
If there is evidence to support negligence then CCH deserves to be found in error and to pay damages. If there is no negligence then CCH is fine (as far as the case goes) and the plantif should really pay their fees.
Where the country has problems with lawsuits is when the case is so obviously frivolous yet it still goes forward. but how can anyone know until the evidence is examined. Where we are in real trouble is when lawyers bend the truth or seek lawsuits for profit and not for justice (yes that sounds a little silly).
We need the law and since it's complicated, we need lawyers. What we don't need is ambulance chasers who create cases where there are none. Unfortunately, we don't really know the evidence in this case so there is no way at all to even guess as to its merit. Maybe the plantif is totally justified in this case. maybe CCH really was negligent by not taking any corrective action and knowingly sold defective equipment. Maybe not. That's for a judge or jury to decide, isn't it.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jun 20, 2007, 8:58 AM
Post #49 of 170
(4907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
CCH earned this the old fashion way. I liken it more to using leeches to clean gangrene from a gaping wound in the industry.
The odds of even good leeches getting anything out of them is, I suspect, pretty damn slim, however. The cash and stash are probably all well beyond the scope of an audit. I'd be amazed if insurance was current, or that there is much in the way of easy equity or assets to go after beyond a few old machine tools (and a new test rig). In the end they'll probably just shut them down and have little else to show for their effort.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 20, 2007, 12:00 PM
Post #50 of 170
(4868 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
stymingersfink wrote: ...which is why it should be drilled in to every aspiring leaders head that one should never climb with a single piece of gear between themselves and ground-strike. PERIOD.
"PERIOD," is a pretty bold statement. Is this the rule you climb by 100% of the time? I try to follow it, but the reality is that, sometimes, I pick climbs with consequences that I can only mitigate so much.
EDIT: When I do "push the limit," or whatever, I have a certain expectation (which is not absolute) that my gear will perform as advertised. If I were the one injured when an Alien broke, I think I might sue, but only to recover actual damages and expenses. I would shy away from punitive damages.
Obviously, I'm happy to not be in a position that requires me to make that choice. If any good comes of this, I hope it's that we all think long and hard about how we would react if it were us, rather than make snap judgments about those who didn't fare so well. I don't think there's a single correct answer, but I'm sure considering the question.
(This post was edited by j_ung on Jun 20, 2007, 12:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
