|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 12:19 PM
Post #51 of 170
(4302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
curt wrote: 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.
....And what exactly makes you think I haven't spent a fair amount of time around statistical math?
jt512 wrote: 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
We're in agreement, but that doesn't change the fact that the math is there. Just to be clear where our arguments differ: Dynosore wasn't talking about reasonable assumptions, he was talking about all assumptions, so I laid it out. If you change the delineations to *reasonable* assumptions, which is actually what I advised him to do if you go back and read the post, yes, you'll reach the conclusion that we share.
I climb, and I don't worry about the gear, because I know that this type of failure is not a realistic occurrence. I realize what the numbers mean.
But, I'm also not enough of a goofball to look at things in absolutes, which is a sure path to neurotics if you try to reconcile it with climbing. It's never going to be black and white and come out in such a way that the person seeking absolute safety gets it.
Hence the fallacy of a black and white point of view here.
In reply to: 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
See, I love this type of thing, because we're in complete agreement, but apparently you don't think so.
The odds that a piece will fail in the above fashion are absurdly small - that would be why I pointed out to the guy I quoted that looking at the situation in a boolean manner
(WILL HAPPEN or WON'T HAPPEN)
was pretty stupid. One of those lovely attributes of mathematics is that when looking at the probability of ANY occurrence, you will eventually reach a point on the bell curve where it does happen.
If one considers the situation as a will it or won't it happen to me type of thing, then you have nothing to worry about. But when you try to cut it down to an on/off result like he did, you'll go crazy because you're seeking a guarantee of safety. His mistake was in saying that something should never happen, ever, instead of saying that it was unimaginably unlikely.
I'm actually rather happy that Jay and yourself misinterpreted my comments (or didn't take the time to read them thoroughly, whichever the case was), and ran the math on through. It saved me the trouble. I wasn't going to bother, as this isn't enough of an issue that anyone should be worried enough to put in the effort. Just buy gear from good manufacturers, and no problemo.
To recap:
- Dynosore was referring in absolute terms, which means all possible occurrences ever, which includes that 1 in 10^80 chance.
- I pointed out that this was a surefire recipe for driving one's self crazy and instead suggested he look at whether or not it was likely to affect him rather than occur at all, eventually, ever.
- I am lambasted by several folks for...I'm not sure why. Having the same view as them but bothering to point out why the opposing view is silly?
- And here we are.
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Jun 20, 2007, 12:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jun 20, 2007, 2:17 PM
Post #52 of 170
(4241 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
11 botched cams in the last year or two, many of which were absurd failure modes. We're not talking about 1 or 2 cams. You shy away from absolutes, but I'd say it doens't get more black and white than that.
As I've hashed over this topic over and over again in previous threads, I'm going to try and limit my comments on that matter to the above statement.
I'm pretty amazed no one found that Pritzker site sooner. I stumbled accross it and made a very vague reference to it in the Souder's Crack thread. I didn't want to advertize to promote a lawsuit, but in retrospect, I'm starting to think (in this case at least) that it might have not been a bad idea. Now it seems I've been releived of the burden.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 2:22 PM
Post #53 of 170
(4237 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
As mentioned before:
I don't trust CCH gear and I don't climb on it, specifically because of all the unanswered questions surrounding it, and the apparent lack of interest in answering those questions on CCH's part.
It's not black and white, but it certainly makes my decisions easy...
|
|
|
|
|
bolderer
Jun 20, 2007, 3:24 PM
Post #54 of 170
(4196 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2006
Posts: 48
|
out of the 50-some-odd posts here only 2 or 3 had any understanding of the legal implications involved in this situation. So let me speak up for the "leeches." CCH, if it had any sense, would have a liability insurance policy for events such as this. Hell, I sure would if I was manufacturing climbing gear. Even if they don't such corporations are generally organized as limited or partial liability corporations which means if they screw up real bad they don't have to worry about not being able to pay their own mortgage or feed their kids. Any $ to be paid is paid strictly and solely by the assets held by the corporation. A GOOD leech, if properly consulted would have told the owner of CCH this before they started selling climbing gear.
As to the "pandora's box" and "flood of litigation" cliches, there is actually a reason that tort and personal injury law exists. Yes, sometimes it is ludicrous a la McDonald's burn case but the majority of the time (or at least a fair majority) it protects people who have absolutely terrible s**t that happens to them by trying to compensate them for their injuries. Read a few legal or leech textbooks and talk to a few friendly leeches and you will see that it is better to have a flawed system than no system at all.
Here, we have a "dangerous sport" situation. There are all kinds of different legal theories at issue here but without giving you all a "leech lecture" I will say that CCH is going to cough up some money, either settling and if they are really stupid, by judgment of a court. Negligence is basically when the entity - here CCH - KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN of a dangerous situation. A jury is going to wonder why the hell CCH didn't work a little harder to rectify the situation.
So Leech Lecture 101 is over. Take from it what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jun 20, 2007, 4:19 PM
Post #55 of 170
(4165 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
ja1484 wrote: 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.
Just because the risk is higher in certain activities or jobs doesn't mean you should cope with improperly constructed equipment that fails well below its rated strength. By that argument, a manufacturer of bullet-proof vests shouldn't be liable if a vest fails below its rating. A vest isn't designed to stop everything, and no one would claim getting shot at is a good idea, but such a product in good condition should function properly. I would think putting false reliance upon it is worse than not having it at all.
Climbing isn't safe, but it's a reasonable expectation that well-maintained gear properly used will perform as designed. From what I've seen, CCH hasn't lived up to that expectation. Do you disagree?
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 4:25 PM
Post #56 of 170
(4160 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
markc wrote: Just because the risk is higher in certain activities or jobs doesn't mean you should cope with improperly constructed equipment that fails well below its rated strength. By that argument, a manufacturer of bullet-proof vests shouldn't be liable if a vest fails below its rating. A vest isn't designed to stop everything, and no one would claim getting shot at is a good idea, but such a product in good condition should function properly. I would think putting false reliance upon it is worse than not having it at all. Climbing isn't safe, but it's a reasonable expectation that well-maintained gear properly used will perform as designed. From what I've seen, CCH hasn't lived up to that expectation. Do you disagree?
Never disagreed with any of this. My point is that expectations and legality are separate entities. I don't climb on CCH hardware because I don't expect it to fulfill its advertised abilities. Whether or not that's the case, and whether or not CCH is legally liable if that does turn out to be the case, is a question for other people (apparently, the courts) to decide.
My personal observation is that I've heard more about CCH failures than other brands, but that's all it has been - hearing about things. Anecdotal evidence on the web. We don't have any info on how the gear was used, what forces it was exposed to, storage, history, etc.
We just hear about a lot of mishaps involving Aliens.
That's enough reason for me to steer clear of them, but I can't indict CCH based on that alone - it's incomplete information, and there may be good and valid reasons for these failures, or these failures may get more attention in the community because hating on Aliens is kind of popular right now 
Regardless of the circumstances, what I'm saying is don't be surprised if CCH is not found at fault, should this thing actually go to trial. There's a reason manufacturers put all those warnings in their documentation...
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Jun 20, 2007, 4:28 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
paulbehee
Jun 20, 2007, 4:39 PM
Post #57 of 170
(4149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2006
Posts: 88
|
ja1484 wrote: "There is a *very* fine line between bold and stupid." In reply to: Yeah, climbing is bold, using aliens is stupid!
(This post was edited by paulbehee on Jun 20, 2007, 4:40 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jun 20, 2007, 4:56 PM
Post #58 of 170
(4134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
ja1484 wrote: My personal observation is that I've heard more about CCH failures than other brands, but that's all it has been - hearing about things. Anecdotal evidence on the web. We don't have any info on how the gear was used, what forces it was exposed to, storage, history, etc...
The reports posted here represent something of a little bit higher quality than "hearing about things". I'm More leary about antecdotal evidence than most (goes with my work). However, for antecdotal reports on the web, we have remarkably complete reports in many of the cases, chalk full of many of the relavent details you are asking for. Some were even tests undertaken using pretty controlled conditions (for your average rock climber). The souder's crack thread had photos of the cam stuck in the placement, and the Indian creek thread had pictures of the guy falling. In many cases the forces can be verified as much as can be reasonably expected. What is presented here goes a little farther than hearsay.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 5:01 PM
Post #59 of 170
(4127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
bobruef wrote: ja1484 wrote: My personal observation is that I've heard more about CCH failures than other brands, but that's all it has been - hearing about things. Anecdotal evidence on the web. We don't have any info on how the gear was used, what forces it was exposed to, storage, history, etc... The reports posted here represent something of a little bit higher quality than "hearing about things". I'm More leary about antecdotal evidence than most (goes with my work). However, for antecdotal reports on the web, we have remarkably complete reports in many of the cases, chalk full of many of the relavent details you are asking for. Some were even tests undertaken using pretty controlled conditions (for your average rock climber). The souder's crack thread had photos of the cam stuck in the placement, and the Indian creek thread had pictures of the guy falling. In many cases the forces can be verified as much as can be reasonably expected. What is presented here goes a little farther than hearsay.
Agreed, but it's still not the same as a full analysis by someone qualified to investigate this kind of thing.
Exactly what "qualified" means is, again, something that's fairly open to opinion.
I'll agree that some of the reports have been relatively thorough, and again, this is why I steer clear of CCH stuff, but I'm just being pointed: I don't have all the information, so I hesitate to make any judgements.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 5:02 PM
Post #60 of 170
(4127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ja1484 wrote: curt wrote: 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. ....And what exactly makes you think I haven't spent a fair amount of time around statistical math?
Your original conclusion, and now your use of a phrase "statistical math," unless that's a Euro phrase, or something.
In reply to: I'm actually rather happy that Jay and yourself misinterpreted my comments (or didn't take the time to read them thoroughly...
Well, I read your original post twice before replying, and was pretty perplexed by it; and now I have read it again, and am still pretty perplexed. Either we really do disagree, or you have not explained yourself very well.
Let's look again at the claims in your original post:
In reply to: 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.
That depends on what you mean by "eventually." If by "eventually" you mean eventually in finite time, then, no, it will not eventually happen. Human beings will have ceased to exist eons before enough cams could ever be manufactured so that it might be possible for one to fail at -19 standard deviations (SD).
We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail.
In reply to: If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed.
Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed.
Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jun 20, 2007, 5:11 PM
Post #61 of 170
(4111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
healyje wrote: 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.
Joe,
what you say may be true on the corporate side. If they have no insurance, and if they are undercapitalized, it is possible to go through the corporate shell and attack the assets of the shareholders (if they have any.) Believe me, a PI attorney will be doing a finance check before proceeding.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 5:12 PM
Post #62 of 170
(4111 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
jt512 wrote: Well, I read your original post twice before replying, and was pretty perplexed by it; and now I have read it again, and am still pretty perplexed. Either we really do disagree, or you have not explained yourself very well. Let's look again at the claims in your original post: In reply to: 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. That depends on what you mean by "eventually." If by "eventually" you mean eventually in finite time, then, no, it will not eventually happen. Human beings will have ceased to exist eons before enough cams could ever be manufactured so that it might be possible for one to fail at -19 standard deviations (SD).
I'm speaking purely in terms of the numbers in theory - on paper. Not taking into account pesky little things like "reality". So in essence, no, I'm not talking about finite time. Assume we continue manufacturing cams ad infinitum. I'm crunching numbers, not putting the numbers into practice.
Pointless? Yes it is, which is exactly why I mentioned to dynosore that he might want to stop thinking about the situation in absolutes.
In reply to: We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail.
All this is exactly why I feel fine climbing above 3Sig certed equipment. Again, previous statements were regarding the infinite world of numbers. See above.
The thing I always like about this though is that (on a slightly tangential note) people always assume it's that last cam in the 10^80 batch. Why not the first? Or perhaps the 7th? Just wondering.
Regardless, I still trust my gear.
In reply to: Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed.
Yes, but you related the results to our real-world situation, not the straight math. Looking purely at the numbers and leaving assumptions off the table, that -19 SD failure is still there, no?
In reply to: Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use. Jay
Agreed.
Edit: This is all, of course, assuming that quality control checks were accurate. When you bring human error into the process, things get quite a bit more complicated, which is why, despite the big fancy numbers, there are occasional gear failures under proper use and within acceptable loads (a recent example being that Omega link cam that had been placed a few times and never weighted having a lobe fall off). This stuff isn't so easy to calculate (if possible at all), and is the real-world, finite time "x-factor" - what people should actually be worried about if they're going to bother worrying at all.
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Jun 20, 2007, 5:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
Jun 20, 2007, 5:21 PM
Post #63 of 170
(4090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
jt512 wrote: We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail. In reply to: If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed. Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed. Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use. Jay
Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen.
Remember getting double 6 with 2 dices is 1/36 probability. You can roll the dices 36 times and have them come up , on the first roll on the last roll , or at any other time (and even multiples times) or even not at all
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 5:26 PM
Post #64 of 170
(4077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
papounet wrote: Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. Remember getting double 6 with 2 dices is 1/36 probability. You can roll the dices 36 times and have them come up , on the first roll on the last roll , or at any other time (and even multiples times) or even not at all
This is more or less what I was getting at with my "Why not the 1st or 7th cam" comment in my previous post.
Jay may argue that pure numbers not applied is pointless, and I'd agree with him there, but the pure math simply states that eventually, a cam failure exists.
Run for the...er, away from the hills!
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
Jun 20, 2007, 5:31 PM
Post #65 of 170
(4067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
Being that we're already off-topic... for those folks who're citing the cliche McDonald's coffee case, here's something I wrote during a liability discussion on TeleMarkTips from a couple of months ago:
[quote="Something SCUClimber wrote on TTips"]
[quote="Baaahb"]So everyone buys insurance and, with that, as well as the ridiculous nature of some liability verdicts (e.g. McDonald's coffee)
Bob,
In the McDonald's coffee case (lightning-rod for citation in tort reform arguments that it is), McDonald's had plenty of chances to rectify their (reckless) behavior before litigation. See my quote below. When the court handed down that large punitive damages award, they were punishing Mickey D's for behavior that they should have already remedied. Yes it was the woman's fault that she was wearing sweat pants that soaked up the coffee and allowed it to burn her (much more serious burns than you might think), and yes, it was her fault that it spilled but the court ruled that McDonalds was willfully serving coffee (company-wide) at a temp which they knew could seriously burn people. It's not as if somebody who wasn't a regular customer automatically knew the coffee was *that* hot. McDonalds changed their coffee temp company-wide after that judgment was handed down.
[quote="My Torts Textbook on the McDonald's Coffee Case :)"]
Ms. Liebeck, a 79-year-old Abuquerque, N.M. resident, purchased a container of coffee from McDonald's which included a warning on the container stating Caution: contents hot."...She had difficulty removing the lid with one hand and, to use both hands, she placed the container between her legs. While removing the lid, the cup tipped over, the hot coffee soaked her into her sweat pants keeping the hot liquid in contact with her skin, and she immediately started to burn. As she struggled to pull the pants from her body, she incurred thrid degree burns to her legs, groin and buttocks requiring eight days of hospitalization and numerous skin grafts. She suffered permanent scarring over sixteen percent of her body, and it took her two years to recover her health. Her medical bills totaled almost $10,000 [that almost seems cheap]. Also as a result of the burns, she was unable to continue her part-time job as a sales clerk.
Ms. Liebeck initially did not hire a lawyer and sent a letter asking McDonald's to evaluate the serving temperature of their coffe and to pay her medical expenses not covered by medicare [wow, she seems like a reasonable person, not a money-hungry frivolous-lawsuiter :wink:]. After sixth months, McDonald's rejected the suggestion on the coffee temperature and offered $800 personal compensation. Ms. Liebeck offered to settle the matter for payment of her medical bills, but McDonald's refused. Ms. Liebeck then sought out legal counsel and took McDonald's to court. A few days before trial, the judge ordered the parties to participate in a mediation session. The mediator recommended a settlement of $185,000 based on experience and what a jury would likely award. McDonald's refused to settle and insisted on a trial.
Trial testimony indicated that the Albuquerque McDonald's restaurant followed franchise policy and served its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. At that level of heat, it takes many minutes for a cup to cool to a drinkable temperature. Life threatening third degree burns occur within two to seven seconds of skin contact at that temperature. Home brewed coffee, by contrast, is generally served at 135-140 degrees. Other restaurants in the area served their coffee at least 20 degrees below that of McDonald's. Plaintiff's expert at trial testified that a liquid at 185 degrees will cause third degree burns in 3-10 seconds. A third degree burn, sometimes called a "full thickness burn" means that all layers of the skin are burned completely through.
An executive for McDonald's testified that the company knew of the scalding risk and that customers were not typically aware of the danger of third degree burns. The company had a list of more than 700 [previous] burn cases, but, the executive testified, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the heat [emphasis mine]. . .
. . .McDonald's insisted that the high temperatures were necessary to extract the coffee's full flavor during brewing. The executive testified that many customers purchase coffee at fast food take-out windows to while commuting or to carry back to their work places. A defense statistician testified that Ms. Liebeck's burn case and all the others were statistically insignificant in terms of the 1.4 million cups of coffee sold every day by McDonald's franchises worldwide [emphasis mine... and gee, it would sure make me feel better that I was "statistically insignificant" when I had third-degree burns to sixteen percent of my body :roll:]. McDonald's sells more than a half billino cups of coffee a year.
After a trial, the New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages, and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The jury found McDonald's to be 80 percent negligent and Ms. Liebeck to be 20 percent negligent. Accordingly, the judge reduced Ms. Liebeck's compensatory damage award to $160,000. The punitive damage award amounted to two days of total nation coffee sales estimated at $1.35 million per day. New Mexico trial judge Robert Scott reduced the punitive damage award to $480,000, a figure he arrived at by tripling the $160,000 compensatory award. The case was appealed, but before the appeal was heard, the parties settled for an undisclosed sum. McDonald's has since reduced the temperature of its coffee.
All that being said, punitive damages are very seldomly handed down when viewed against tort claims in the aggregate. I think that maybe punitive damages should go to some other entity rather than the victim---maybe a burn center in the McDonalds case---because they are designed to deter negligent (reckless?) conduct and not necessarily to compensate the victim. The standard rule is that punitive damages are not to be more than 9x the compensatory damages. Generally, correct me if I'm wrong, since they serve to attempt to deter tortious conduct, they're generally bigger when the company is richer... although whether net worth can enter into evidence has been hotly contested.
And while I agree with you that pain and suffering awards don't bring back someone's leg or loved one in a wrongful death case, monetary value is the compensation that the system has decided on in the absence of being able to restore loss of life, limb, and enjoyment of life. I mean, if somebody is wronged (let's set-aside frivolous suits for a second), then they should be compensated by the person or organization that wronged them. If the person then wants to donate that money to charity or what have you, then so be it. Heheh, I suppose that this argument is kind of circular.
Isn't there an inherent safeguard from the attorney's perspective against frivolous suits in Rule 11? Actually, hang on, I'll look it up:
[quote="Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11"]
(b) Representations to Court.
By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Sanctions.
If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
Bob, or any other the other attorneys around here, how effective is that rule? Can it effectively be quantified with data? I kinda doubt that it can. In any case, the system has built in procedural safeguards against frivolous suits and this isn't the only one.
Bottom line is: I agree with you the substantial tort reform needs to happen (it's already started with, for example, the $250K cap on medical malpractice awards), however I think I disagree with you in that I don't think the system needs to be completely overhauled. These are my thoughts at this point, I'm sure they'll probably change in the future when I get into practice and see the world and our judicial system with more experienced eyes. :)
Cheers.
The whole thread, quite an interesting and reasonably well-informed discussion on issues similar to those in play here, may be found here:
http://telemarktalk.com/...s+coffee&start=0
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Jun 20, 2007, 5:42 PM
Post #66 of 170
(4050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Jay-
I've only taken one stats class, but here's a question for you.
In a 3 or 6 sigma rating test... isn't that .00001 (or whatever number it ends up being) supposed to be the failure for a perfectly manufacturered cam in a batch of x perfectly manufactured cams?
I think what I'm confused about is how you can predict the statistics of when something will be faultily manufactured?
Maybe I'm explaining this poorly... I'm trying to get at the basic assumptions of where the numbers start. It doesn't seem like CCH even makes it to the table...
Basically, metolius, for example pull tests all of their cams and 3 sigma tests for QC, so we can expect 3 sigmas before failure: but this is not the case for CCH.
hmm, well, maybe you get what I'm saying... I don't think any numbers by CCH are standardized or close to usable...especially if they say they are 3 sigma testing or tensile testing. The failure rate shows they are not, or at the least that they are not keeping a uniform manufacturing process...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 5:46 PM
Post #67 of 170
(4040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
papounet wrote: jt512 wrote: We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail. In reply to: If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed. Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed. Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use. Jay Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen.
No, please consider the magnitude of the number, which I have related to both the age of the Universe and the number of atoms in the Universe. This probability is incomprehensibly small. It is so small that we can say with virtual certainty that no event with that probability will occur on Earth during our lifetime.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 5:56 PM
Post #68 of 170
(4024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
psprings wrote: Jay- I've only taken one stats class, but here's a question for you. In a 3 or 6 sigma rating test... isn't that .00001 (or whatever number it ends up being) supposed to be the failure for a perfectly manufacturered cam in a batch of x perfectly manufactured cams?
A 3-sigma rating implies that, if the distribution of failure loads is normal, then 99.87% of the units will meet the standard. The rest should fail at loads reasonably close to the standard. A failure below 6-sigma is virtually impossible, so if a unit fails below 6-sigma, it implies that the population from which the unit was derived did not meet the standards stated by the manufacturer.
I'm speaking here as a statistician; A QA engineer might view the subject a little differently.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
highangle
Jun 20, 2007, 6:02 PM
Post #69 of 170
(4013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 151
|
These comments are based on my experience in the court system, but I am not an attorney (or a leech).
It is possible to pierce the corporate veil, but difficult at best. Depends on how much the corp intermingles its books with personal stuff, etc. FWIW, Colorado Custom Hardware, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation, Dave Waggoner is the President, according to the Wyoming Secretary of State as of today. https://wyobiz.wy.gov/...ngNum=2000-000401749
As I understand the litigation issues, if CCH gets sued, a lot of the issue will be "standard of care," ie- what is the industry standard for the manufacturing and testing of personal safety equipment. That level of care will have to be determined by a court, and additionally, it will have to be proved that CCH did not adhere to that standard.
If CCH is found negligent, then they could also investigate whether or not the Board of Directors had knowledge of the negligence, and then go after them if they did have that knowledge.
If the suit takes place in a state that looks at comparitive negligence, then, as I understand, the court would look at who was responsible, and in what percentage. (ie CCH - 60% for poor testing processes, and the climber 40% for failing to provide adequate backup of his system) This comparison of negligence on the part of all the parties would generally determine the award.
If it does come to a suit, it is going to be very, VERY interesting.....
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 6:04 PM
Post #70 of 170
(4009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
jt512 wrote: papounet wrote: jt512 wrote: We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail. In reply to: If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed. Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed. Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use. Jay Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. No, please consider the magnitude of the number, which I have related to both the age of the Universe and the number of atoms in the Universe. This probability is incomprehensibly small. It is so small that we can say with virtual certainty that no event with that probability will occur on Earth during our lifetime. Jay
Virtual certainty is a different thing from certainty last time I checked...
Edit: And "incomprehensibly small" is being generous. Incomprehensibly, unfathomably, ridiculously, flabbergastingly, awe-inspiringly small is probably more accurate.
(This post was edited by ja1484 on Jun 20, 2007, 6:08 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jun 20, 2007, 6:07 PM
Post #71 of 170
(4000 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ja1484 wrote: jt512 wrote: papounet wrote: jt512 wrote: We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail. In reply to: If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed. Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed. Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use. Jay Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. No, please consider the magnitude of the number, which I have related to both the age of the Universe and the number of atoms in the Universe. This probability is incomprehensibly small. It is so small that we can say with virtual certainty that no event with that probability will occur on Earth during our lifetime. Jay Virtual certainty is a different thing from certainty last time I checked...
It's really splitting hairs.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Jun 20, 2007, 6:09 PM
Post #72 of 170
(3997 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
jt512 wrote: ja1484 wrote: jt512 wrote: papounet wrote: jt512 wrote: We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail. In reply to: If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed. Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed. Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use. Jay Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. No, please consider the magnitude of the number, which I have related to both the age of the Universe and the number of atoms in the Universe. This probability is incomprehensibly small. It is so small that we can say with virtual certainty that no event with that probability will occur on Earth during our lifetime. Jay Virtual certainty is a different thing from certainty last time I checked... It's really splitting hairs.
You got somethin better to do on the internet? 
|
|
|
|
|
kovacs69
Jun 20, 2007, 6:18 PM
Post #73 of 170
(3979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 607
|
ja1484 wrote: jt512 wrote: ja1484 wrote: jt512 wrote: papounet wrote: jt512 wrote: We noted that the probability of a -19 SD event is about 1 / 10^80. Now, the Big Bang is estimated to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago. Now, even if 1 billion cams were produced every second since the Big Bang until now, "only" about 10^25 cams will have been produced. This is still 55 orders of magnitude less than the number of cams needed for us to expect to produce a single cam that would fail at -19 SD. So, since even on a cosmologic time scale, "eventually" no cam could fail at such a low load, it is certain that on a human time scale, no cam could fail. In reply to: If you crunch the numbers, it WILL happen to SOMEONE, guaranteed. Well, I just did crunch them, and we saw that no, it will never happen to someone, guaranteed. Conclusion: Under realistic assumptions, it is statistically impossible for a cam belonging to a population purported to have a 3-sigma breaking strength of 10 kN to break at 2 kN under normal use. Jay Hmm, because it is stats means no absolute should be used. the fact that the probabilty of a cam belonging to a population which has a 3signam breaking strength or 10 kN +/- 1.5kn failing a -19SD is absurdly low does not say it has not yet occured or it won't occur in our lifetime. it just extremely unlikely to happen. No, please consider the magnitude of the number, which I have related to both the age of the Universe and the number of atoms in the Universe. This probability is incomprehensibly small. It is so small that we can say with virtual certainty that no event with that probability will occur on Earth during our lifetime. Jay Virtual certainty is a different thing from certainty last time I checked... It's really splitting hairs. You got somethin better to do on the internet?
On Word....PORN!!!
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
nefarius
Jun 20, 2007, 6:38 PM
Post #74 of 170
(3959 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2003
Posts: 128
|
fulton wrote: patto wrote: Lawyers are a leech on society. Until you need one.
No, then they are just a contract employed, high paid leach. Still a leach though.
|
|
|
|
|
psprings
Jun 20, 2007, 7:21 PM
Post #75 of 170
(3919 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 254
|
Thanks Jay.
I was getting confused about whether the 3 sigma included those cams that were "bad" units as a result of some failures in the processes or if it was only "good" units made according to the processes or not. I think some people, including myself, was thinking for a minute there that the 3 sigma included mis-manufactured units. But it is actually the failure rate for units made correctly.
Thanks!
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
