![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
redlude97
Jan 1, 2011, 6:34 PM
Post #101 of 285
(15175 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
moose_droppings wrote: redlude97 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law. *plonk* So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all? How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread. Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land. Before you and Jay go off and say this has nothing to do with inherent risk of climbing and such, remember, it was your assertion that a landowner can't be held liable since he didn't charge the person for use of his land. I merely presented you a situation which contradicts your assertion without changing your statement. Many people, especially lawyers, wouldn't consider that an inherent risk of using his property and that it should of been anticipated and accepted as a reason for the landowner not be held liable. Inherent risks and assumption of risk have limitations. Jay and you are both intentionally ignoring that I had originally stated that not all liability claims are the same and need to be put into context with the circumstances. Different circumstances to both of your prior scenarios can change the outcome without changing either of your stated assertions. But now neither of you will except anything that doesn't fit your ever narrowing tolerances. It's a given if we restrain the circumstances that you and Jay want to impose then that someone probably won't be held liable. All I've said throughout is that each case is different and not all cases will withstand either of your initial asserted defenses of assuming risks or inherent risk. Jay, I thought you had already sheltered yourself from my post. Please continue with that since I won't be responding to your belittling ad hominem attacks which are an ever increasingly hallmark to your debates. Your personal attacks don't warrant a response. Edited because it's late and I'm tired. The problem is you took my original comment in this thread, which yes was a general statement, but was stated in the context of this thread, as applying to all cases however far fetched. I thought it would have been pretty obvious we were talking about landowner liability in the direct context related to my quotes, ie normal climbing situations where someone gets hurt, related directly to normal climbing dangers ie bolts breaking, holds, loose rock, decking etc. Not intentionally cutting ropes, suicidal tractors or whatever intentionally obtuse examples you want to imagine up.
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
jt512
Jan 1, 2011, 6:39 PM
Post #102 of 285
(15172 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
redlude97 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: redlude97 wrote: moose_droppings wrote: I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law. *plonk* So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all? How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread. Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land. Before you and Jay go off and say this has nothing to do with inherent risk of climbing and such, remember, it was your assertion that a landowner can't be held liable since he didn't charge the person for use of his land. I merely presented you a situation which contradicts your assertion without changing your statement. Many people, especially lawyers, wouldn't consider that an inherent risk of using his property and that it should of been anticipated and accepted as a reason for the landowner not be held liable. Inherent risks and assumption of risk have limitations. Jay and you are both intentionally ignoring that I had originally stated that not all liability claims are the same and need to be put into context with the circumstances. Different circumstances to both of your prior scenarios can change the outcome without changing either of your stated assertions. But now neither of you will except anything that doesn't fit your ever narrowing tolerances. It's a given if we restrain the circumstances that you and Jay want to impose then that someone probably won't be held liable. All I've said throughout is that each case is different and not all cases will withstand either of your initial asserted defenses of assuming risks or inherent risk. Jay, I thought you had already sheltered yourself from my post. Please continue with that since I won't be responding to your belittling ad hominem attacks which are an ever increasingly hallmark to your debates. Your personal attacks don't warrant a response. Edited because it's late and I'm tired.The problem is you took my original comment in this thread, which yes was a general statement, but was stated in the context of this thread, as applying to all cases however far fetched. I thought it would have been pretty obvious we were talking about landowner liability in the direct context related to my quotes, ie normal climbing situations where someone gets hurt, related directly to normal climbing dangers ie bolts breaking, holds, loose rock, decking etc. Not intentionally cutting ropes, suicidal tractors or whatever intentionally obtuse examples you want to imagine up. You're wasting your time. He's never going to understand. Jay
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
majid_sabet
Jan 1, 2011, 8:03 PM
Post #103 of 285
(15139 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
bearbreeder wrote: majid_sabet wrote: I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right. I am not always right taking all the draws as they must all be obviously unsafe .....claiming they are yours ... bashing "pussies" for not being able to clean a 5.14 every time when you cant even do a 5.8 how righteous thoult art oh holy majid ![Tongue](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/tongue.gif) this thread was all about thief till I mentioned unsafe and then the whole train derailed in to another dimension. Now, that is called Wabitt Power
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
chadnsc
Jan 1, 2011, 8:09 PM
Post #104 of 285
(15133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
majid_sabet wrote: bearbreeder wrote: majid_sabet wrote: I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right. I am not always right taking all the draws as they must all be obviously unsafe .....claiming they are yours ... bashing "pussies" for not being able to clean a 5.14 every time when you cant even do a 5.8 how righteous thoult art oh holy majid ![Tongue](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/tongue.gif) this thread was all about thief till I mentioned unsafe and then the whole train derailed in to another dimension. Now, that is called Wabitt Power Oh yeah midget, cuz Jay and Moose arguing about liability for the last four pages all had to do with you. You're like a child midget . . .
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
areyoumydude
Jan 1, 2011, 10:19 PM
Post #105 of 285
(15093 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2003
Posts: 1971
|
camhead wrote: it's really funny to compare and contrast the development of this thread and its sister thread on mountainproject. There's a gud one on the taco too.
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
moose_droppings
Jan 2, 2011, 12:21 AM
Post #107 of 285
(15055 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
redlude97 wrote: The problem is you took my original comment in this thread, which yes was a general statement, but was stated in the context of this thread, as applying to all cases however far fetched. I thought it would have been pretty obvious we were talking about landowner liability in the direct context related to my quotes, ie normal climbing situations where someone gets hurt, related directly to normal climbing dangers ie bolts breaking, holds, loose rock, decking etc. Not intentionally cutting ropes, suicidal tractors or whatever intentionally obtuse examples you want to imagine up. The conversation evolved and expanded and you were a major contributor to this. You brought in bolts and anchors, you brought in landowners. By the time I stated that "it depends" the conversation was already covering anchors, bolts and draws, and soon to be landlords. Any liability case is going to be judged by the circumstances. I haven't once excluded a cut and dried case from the assumption of risks clause, if that is what the circumstances are, then it will fall under that. I've maintained throughout that each liability case is different and needs to be examined to include all the circumstances. Then let the case fall were it may. I've only giving examples that fall outside the risk assumption clause to show you and Jay that not everything falls under a blanket statement. Also, unlike Jay, I hold no ill feelings toward you from this discussion. Everyone has their own perspective and opinion. Please read through this redlude97. I really think you need to see what and when it was said. It's corresponds to our post in chronological order. I've paraphrased to shorten it up. The thread started with a guy taking draws. Discussion then danced around whether or not the draws should be left there. Then on to who could be liable. You then said there was a presedence for such liability regarding chains and bolts. You added it would probably be the same for quickdraws. I asked for a legal reference. You pointed me to another thread. I pointed out that the other thread was opinion, but no presedence in regard of liability. I also acknowledged that there probably isn't by offering to read any someone could point me to one. I then made this statement. "I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument. " This statement does not in any way say who is right or wrong, it's says it depends on circumstances. You replied, "Precedence wasn't the right word. When I said that what I meant was that there had been many bolt failures in the past. There are manly bolts at many crags throughout the us and no one has been sued yet. I think this mostly has to do with the fact that almost everyone associates climbing with inherent danger and that any fixed protection is use at ur own risk ", I do agree with that. Jay joins and says, "Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them." I took his blanket of someone being negligent is excused under the iron clad "assumption of risk" clause and shot a hole in it. Jay cried foul but later acknowledged that it was within his parameters. I then reminded him that all my original statement implied was, it depends on the circumstances. Jay didn't like "it depends". I said blanket statements aren't good. You then said my example is irrelevant since we were talking quickdraws, not anchors. Then you said, "Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner ". I then quoted you as being the one that brought anchors into this conversation a long ways back. Then I pointed out your landowner blanket statement. You then bring up limiting liability. I point your assumption of everything being cut and dried. You then ask for cases. Earlier neither you or me didn't think there were any, Jay tries this trap later too. You reassert that landowners aren't liable if they don't charge, the opposite of your 1st part of that post. I try to get it across to you, and knowing Jay's reading, that all I'm pointing out through this entire drift that no case is perfectly clear. Yes sometimes a case may fall under the assumption of risk clause and sometimes not, it depends on circumstances. I give another example, far fetched but within the liability between a landowner and a climber. Jay accuses me of strawman. I showed him how it wasn't. You then ask for a case that prior to this we have both acknowledged probably isn't there. Jay admits without saying so he hadn't thought of different circumstances that fit within the parameters. You took a large leap to construe something that wasn't there. Jay acknowledges my example as fair. I say your falling behind in what you've said. I also give you an example you don't like that again falls within your parameters. I try one last desperate time to explain that cases are different depending on the circumstances and that assumption of risk doesn't excuse all cases. I point out that it's a given if the right circumstances are meet, assumption laws will apply. It all depends, you two can't grasp that. I also don't believe I'll address any more of Jay's lowball attacks. Jay makes a rabid post. Jay then makes a funny post to divert attention from real discussion with a strawman that relies on a third party. I unfortunately get drawn back in to point out his silly tricks. Over and out. .
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
crazy_fingers84
Jan 2, 2011, 1:18 AM
Post #108 of 285
(15032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2006
Posts: 418
|
moose_droppings wrote: redlude97 wrote: The problem is you took my original comment in this thread, which yes was a general statement, but was stated in the context of this thread, as applying to all cases however far fetched. I thought it would have been pretty obvious we were talking about landowner liability in the direct context related to my quotes, ie normal climbing situations where someone gets hurt, related directly to normal climbing dangers ie bolts breaking, holds, loose rock, decking etc. Not intentionally cutting ropes, suicidal tractors or whatever intentionally obtuse examples you want to imagine up. The conversation evolved and expanded and you were a major contributor to this. You brought in bolts and anchors, you brought in landowners. By the time I stated that "it depends" the conversation was already covering anchors, bolts and draws, and soon to be landlords. Any liability case is going to be judged by the circumstances. I haven't once excluded a cut and dried case from the assumption of risks clause, if that is what the circumstances are, then it will fall under that. I've maintained throughout that each liability case is different and needs to be examined to include all the circumstances. Then let the case fall were it may. I've only giving examples that fall outside the risk assumption clause to show you and Jay that not everything falls under a blanket statement. Also, unlike Jay, I hold no ill feelings toward you from this discussion. Everyone has their own perspective and opinion. Please read through this redlude97. I really think you need to see what and when it was said. It's corresponds to our post in chronological order. I've paraphrased to shorten it up. The thread started with a guy taking draws. Discussion then danced around whether or not the draws should be left there. Then on to who could be liable. You then said there was a presedence for such liability regarding chains and bolts. You added it would probably be the same for quickdraws. I asked for a legal reference. You pointed me to another thread. I pointed out that the other thread was opinion, but no presedence in regard of liability. I also acknowledged that there probably isn't by offering to read any someone could point me to one. I then made this statement. "I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument. " This statement does not in any way say who is right or wrong, it's says it depends on circumstances. You replied, "Precedence wasn't the right word. When I said that what I meant was that there had been many bolt failures in the past. There are manly bolts at many crags throughout the us and no one has been sued yet. I think this mostly has to do with the fact that almost everyone associates climbing with inherent danger and that any fixed protection is use at ur own risk ", I do agree with that. Jay joins and says, "Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them." I took his blanket of someone being negligent is excused under the iron clad "assumption of risk" clause and shot a hole in it. Jay cried foul but later acknowledged that it was within his parameters. I then reminded him that all my original statement implied was, it depends on the circumstances. Jay didn't like "it depends". I said blanket statements aren't good. You then said my example is irrelevant since we were talking quickdraws, not anchors. Then you said, "Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner ". I then quoted you as being the one that brought anchors into this conversation a long ways back. Then I pointed out your landowner blanket statement. You then bring up limiting liability. I point your assumption of everything being cut and dried. You then ask for cases. Earlier neither you or me didn't think there were any, Jay tries this trap later too. You reassert that landowners aren't liable if they don't charge, the opposite of your 1st part of that post. I try to get it across to you, and knowing Jay's reading, that all I'm pointing out through this entire drift that no case is perfectly clear. Yes sometimes a case may fall under the assumption of risk clause and sometimes not, it depends on circumstances. I give another example, far fetched but within the liability between a landowner and a climber. Jay accuses me of strawman. I showed him how it wasn't. You then ask for a case that prior to this we have both acknowledged probably isn't there. Jay admits without saying so he hadn't thought of different circumstances that fit within the parameters. You took a large leap to construe something that wasn't there. Jay acknowledges my example as fair. I say your falling behind in what you've said. I also give you an example you don't like that again falls within your parameters. I try one last desperate time to explain that cases are different depending on the circumstances and that assumption of risk doesn't excuse all cases. I point out that it's a given if the right circumstances are meet, assumption laws will apply. It all depends, you two can't grasp that. I also don't believe I'll address any more of Jay's lowball attacks. Jay makes a rabid post. Jay then makes a funny post to divert attention from real discussion with a strawman that relies on a third party. I unfortunately get drawn back in to point out his silly tricks. Over and out. . p.s. I'm not reading that...
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
evosteve
Jan 2, 2011, 1:45 AM
Post #109 of 285
(15010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2010
Posts: 18
|
Well ive never climbed there before,but our local ethics and rules here are that no new fixed gear can be left without approval.However if i came across a few draws at the end of the day with no one else around(unless they were part of a belay)then i would take them down,then post up on my local forum to find the owner.In our area we could loose access if someone keeps leaving gear up with out permission.Also if i caught someone pulling my gear and i was just taking a piss or abreak....then it would get nasty. The guy in the vid was just trying to cover his ass though. A 5.14....thats awesome shit.
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
jt512
Jan 2, 2011, 2:37 AM
Post #110 of 285
(14992 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
moose_droppings wrote: redlude97 wrote: The problem is you took my original comment in this thread, which yes was a general statement, but was stated in the context of this thread, as applying to all cases however far fetched. I thought it would have been pretty obvious we were talking about landowner liability in the direct context related to my quotes, ie normal climbing situations where someone gets hurt, related directly to normal climbing dangers ie bolts breaking, holds, loose rock, decking etc. Not intentionally cutting ropes, suicidal tractors or whatever intentionally obtuse examples you want to imagine up. The conversation evolved and expanded and you were a major contributor to this. You brought in bolts and anchors, you brought in landowners. By the time I stated that "it depends" the conversation was already covering anchors, bolts and draws, and soon to be landlords. Any liability case is going to be judged by the circumstances. I haven't once excluded a cut and dried case from the assumption of risks clause, if that is what the circumstances are, then it will fall under that. I've maintained throughout that each liability case is different and needs to be examined to include all the circumstances. Then let the case fall were it may. I've only giving examples that fall outside the risk assumption clause to show you and Jay that not everything falls under a blanket statement. Also, unlike Jay, I hold no ill feelings toward you from this discussion. Everyone has their own perspective and opinion. Please read through this redlude97. I really think you need to see what and when it was said. It's corresponds to our post in chronological order. I've paraphrased to shorten it up. The thread started with a guy taking draws. Discussion then danced around whether or not the draws should be left there. Then on to who could be liable. You then said there was a presedence for such liability regarding chains and bolts. You added it would probably be the same for quickdraws. I asked for a legal reference. You pointed me to another thread. I pointed out that the other thread was opinion, but no presedence in regard of liability. I also acknowledged that there probably isn't by offering to read any someone could point me to one. I then made this statement. "I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument. " This statement does not in any way say who is right or wrong, it's says it depends on circumstances. You replied, "Precedence wasn't the right word. When I said that what I meant was that there had been many bolt failures in the past. There are manly bolts at many crags throughout the us and no one has been sued yet. I think this mostly has to do with the fact that almost everyone associates climbing with inherent danger and that any fixed protection is use at ur own risk ", I do agree with that. Jay joins and says, "Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them." I took his blanket of someone being negligent is excused under the iron clad "assumption of risk" clause and shot a hole in it. Jay cried foul but later acknowledged that it was within his parameters. I then reminded him that all my original statement implied was, it depends on the circumstances. Jay didn't like "it depends". I said blanket statements aren't good. You then said my example is irrelevant since we were talking quickdraws, not anchors. Then you said, "Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner ". I then quoted you as being the one that brought anchors into this conversation a long ways back. Then I pointed out your landowner blanket statement. You then bring up limiting liability. I point your assumption of everything being cut and dried. You then ask for cases. Earlier neither you or me didn't think there were any, Jay tries this trap later too. You reassert that landowners aren't liable if they don't charge, the opposite of your 1st part of that post. I try to get it across to you, and knowing Jay's reading, that all I'm pointing out through this entire drift that no case is perfectly clear. Yes sometimes a case may fall under the assumption of risk clause and sometimes not, it depends on circumstances. I give another example, far fetched but within the liability between a landowner and a climber. Jay accuses me of strawman. I showed him how it wasn't. You then ask for a case that prior to this we have both acknowledged probably isn't there. Jay admits without saying so he hadn't thought of different circumstances that fit within the parameters. You took a large leap to construe something that wasn't there. Jay acknowledges my example as fair. I say your falling behind in what you've said. I also give you an example you don't like that again falls within your parameters. I try one last desperate time to explain that cases are different depending on the circumstances and that assumption of risk doesn't excuse all cases. I point out that it's a given if the right circumstances are meet, assumption laws will apply. It all depends, you two can't grasp that. I also don't believe I'll address any more of Jay's lowball attacks. Jay makes a rabid post. Jay then makes a funny post to divert attention from real discussion with a strawman that relies on a third party. I unfortunately get drawn back in to point out his silly tricks. Over and out. Un-fucking-believable. Jay
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
lhwang
Jan 2, 2011, 9:36 AM
Post #111 of 285
(14935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Posts: 582
|
Ok, lawyers correct me, but my understanding is that you basically need to have 4 components in order to have a negligence claim: 1. There has to be a duty of care. If you are paying a professional guide, he definitely owes you a duty of care. Same if you're a doctor and you see a patient in your office. Someone who left their quickdraws on a project does not owe a duty of care to the next random dude who comes along and decides to use them. This is also where a landowner accepting fees becomes potentially difficult because you might argue that he owes you a duty of care. 2. There has to be a breach in the standard of care. So if a guide ties you in using an overhand knot when most climbers would agree that is not the acceptable standard tie-in, that's a breach. 3. There has to be damages or loss of some sort. 4. The damages have to be a direct result of the breach of care. If you take Jay's "blanket statement" in context, he's right that most climbers would say that climbing is inherently risky, and the onus is on the climber to check the draws that he's clipping. ie that the assumption of risk can bar liability such that there's no longer a duty of care owed. The two conditions for that are that the client must have been made aware of the specific risk, and it doesn't excuse reckless conduct.
(This post was edited by lhwang on Jan 2, 2011, 9:55 AM)
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
jt512
Jan 2, 2011, 5:04 PM
Post #112 of 285
(14899 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Assumption of risk is an absolute defense to negligence because it implies that the defendant owed no duty of care. However, after having read the wikipedia article on assumption of risk, I'm a a lot less certain that a negligent belayer could use this defense. Edit: But here's a case from Michigan where the climber sued his belayer for injuries resulting from his failing to catch him. The belayer asserted assumption of risk and won a summary judggment, which was upheld at the state supreme court. So it seems that the assumption of risk doctrine is quite strictly applied in rock climbing. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jan 2, 2011, 5:21 PM)
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
xtrmecat
Jan 2, 2011, 6:08 PM
Post #113 of 285
(14870 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
Umm, you guys. We wanted to hash out the little shit who stole draws and got caught. Not the other , and no one is reading the other bullshit. Kindly take you superior intellect and attitudes somewhere else. Kind of a community service to the rest of us. Please. We really don't care about the other. Burly Bob
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
jt512
Jan 2, 2011, 6:11 PM
Post #114 of 285
(14864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
xtrmecat wrote: Umm, you guys. We wanted to hash out the little shit who stole draws and got caught. Not the other , and no one is reading the other bullshit. Kindly take you superior intellect and attitudes somewhere else. Kind of a community service to the rest of us. Please. We really don't care about the other. We really don't care what you think. Jay
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
xtrmecat
Jan 2, 2011, 6:38 PM
Post #115 of 285
(14846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
That's more than obvious. There is a place you gentleman can go, it's called the campground, and is a great place for off topic discussion. Burly Bob
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
moose_droppings
Jan 2, 2011, 6:39 PM
Post #116 of 285
(14846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
So, basically, it depends on some of the parameters you laid out ? I'd agree. If it's as simple as two adults and their just out for an ordinary day of climbing without any extenuating circumstances, then I'd agree that an assumption of risk could be implied. My first statement took in the context of the conversation that had moved to cases in general involving draws, bolts and anchors. What if the injured party was a 10 year old? Bob, conversations evolve, you don't need to follow.
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
xtrmecat
Jan 2, 2011, 6:48 PM
Post #117 of 285
(14838 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
Here is my response to the topic of discussion written on a forum whose participants have no problem with staying on topic. I also am of the opinion that this thief knew exactly what he was doing. I also believe that the passiveness shown was of no value other than to allow a thief to walk away to repeat his actions, with some more beta on how to get away with it next time, like late in the day, or earlier, etc. I am a passive guy for the most part, but have raised my children to be honest. They never got a public embatrassment to get them there, nor a beating. They have had to stand tall in front of the man though, and nothing made me prouder that to tell my son,"be honest and take your licks, you did it." as his advice as to handle a childhood mistake. They also were never reprimanded for not allowing others to take advantage of them. Those guys just let the thief off, and their posting the video is the internet version of public humiliation. Something I don't particularly see as right, but not so wrong either. Our jails are stuffed with thieves and worse, that stand and take their education/lecture from the cops/judge/probation/parole, and rinse and repeat. And we get to foot the bill for it, weeeee. Personally, I believe that I would have taken my possessions back, probably with force. Big brother could have gotten involved, if HE wanted to prosecute me. I also think that advice to the other fixed draws locations and accessibility information would have also been dispensed. And if he would have wanted to go retrieve them to "recycle" them, I am sure it would have been after one of the eyes would have the swelling come down enough to see while sweating his way up, because the headache would feel more like a train wreck than a hangover while performing such a civic task as cleanup and recycling. Not having consequences for ones actions is part of the problem our society currently has, and being this passive just breeds more of it. A mild ass beating wouldn't be as harsh as cutting off the offending hand, but would be more effective than a lecture. Burly Bob Copied and pasted because I am still of the same thought, and mostly too lazy to retype it.
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
camhead
Jan 2, 2011, 7:07 PM
Post #118 of 285
(14830 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
xtrmecat wrote: That's more than obvious. There is a place you gentleman can go, it's called the campground, and is a great place for off topic discussion. Burly Bob Well, Jay doesn't climb any more since he injured himself at the WNSG. So, arguing hypotheticals that are only peripherally linked to climbing is really all he can do.
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
chadnsc
Jan 2, 2011, 7:33 PM
Post #119 of 285
(14819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 24, 2003
Posts: 4449
|
jt512 wrote: xtrmecat wrote: Umm, you guys. We wanted to hash out the little shit who stole draws and got caught. Not the other , and no one is reading the other bullshit. Kindly take you superior intellect and attitudes somewhere else. Kind of a community service to the rest of us. Please. We really don't care about the other. We really don't care what you think. Jay No, you don’t care what he thinks; stop trying to speak for the entire community. Why don't moose and you have some manors and continue to argue with each other via PM.
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
jt512
Jan 2, 2011, 7:53 PM
Post #120 of 285
(14806 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
xtrmecat wrote: That's more than obvious. There is a place you gentleman can go, it's called the campground, and is a great place for off topic discussion. Burly Bob Climber's liability is not a topic for community. Posts complaining about it, however, are, so I suggest that you continue your whining there. Jay
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
jt512
Jan 2, 2011, 7:54 PM
Post #121 of 285
(14804 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
chadnsc wrote: jt512 wrote: xtrmecat wrote: Umm, you guys. We wanted to hash out the little shit who stole draws and got caught. Not the other , and no one is reading the other bullshit. Kindly take you superior intellect and attitudes somewhere else. Kind of a community service to the rest of us. Please. We really don't care about the other. We really don't care what you think. Jay No, you don’t care what he thinks; stop trying to speak for the entire community. Why don't moose and you have some manors and continue to argue with each other via PM. Chad, we don't care what you think either. Jay
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
jt512
Jan 2, 2011, 7:55 PM
Post #122 of 285
(14801 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
camhead wrote: xtrmecat wrote: That's more than obvious. There is a place you gentleman can go, it's called the campground, and is a great place for off topic discussion. Burly Bob Well, Jay doesn't climb any more since he injured himself at the WNSG. So, arguing hypotheticals that are only peripherally linked to climbing is really all he can do. Well, I've been doing something on rocks. How closely it resembles climbing is a matter of opinion. Jay
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
notapplicable
Jan 2, 2011, 7:56 PM
Post #123 of 285
(14800 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
chadnsc wrote: jt512 wrote: xtrmecat wrote: Umm, you guys. We wanted to hash out the little shit who stole draws and got caught. Not the other , and no one is reading the other bullshit. Kindly take you superior intellect and attitudes somewhere else. Kind of a community service to the rest of us. Please. We really don't care about the other. We really don't care what you think. Jay No, you don’t care what he thinks; stop trying to speak for the entire community. Why don't moose and you have some manors and continue to argue with each other via PM. You are talking to both of them, right?
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
jt512
Jan 2, 2011, 7:57 PM
Post #124 of 285
(14798 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
xtrmecat wrote: Here is my response to the topic of discussion written on a forum whose participants have no problem with staying on topic. I also am of the opinion that this thief knew exactly what he was doing. That's fucking brilliant, Bob. This thread is so much more interesting with 100 posts all saying exactly the same obvious thing. Jay
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif)
sungam
Jan 2, 2011, 8:00 PM
Post #125 of 285
(14795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
HOLY FUCK! THAT DUDEBROHAMSKI HAS A FUKKIN BEARD!!!!! (a topic change was needed?)
|
|
|
![](http://www.rockclimbing.com/images/forum/clear_shim.gif) |
|
|