That there is a discussion here that is tantamount to the equation of Hot coffee + McDonald's = possible coinage...... Congratulations! This thread has earned the Happiegrrrl Seal of Disgust.

I'm flattered.

What if you bought a cup of coffee from Mickey D's, and the bottom fell out of the cup. You get a lapful of boiling coffee and are burned pretty badly.

Is that and issue of sacking up and taking personal responsibility, or is it the failure of a product to perform as intended and promised, resulting in injury?

That there is a discussion here that is tantamount to the equation of Hot coffee + McDonald's = possible coinage...... Congratulations! This thread has earned the Happiegrrrl Seal of Disgust.

Maybe it's my reading comprehension, but I am getting the idea that personal responsibility has been thrown right out the window by some of the posters in this thread.

Ever tried telling someone who is not *the climbing sort* about one of your edgier climbs(if you've ever done any, that is)? Did you noticed the look on their face - one of utter incomprehension as to why you would find it so intriguing to do such an, in their minds, idiotic thing as to climb rocks, and what's more, to knowingly take risks that most people would consider a bad gamble?

That there is a discussion here that is tantamount to the equation of Hot coffee + McDonald's = possible coinage...... Congratulations! This thread has earned the Happiegrrrl Seal of Disgust.

Climbing and it's technical development has a quite interesting history. Back when the ropes were made of hemp, or even when hanging in a swami too long meant death if the person fell, people accepted the f---ing risk as their own. They didn't look to blame the rope or web manufacturer.
.
.
.
.
...beginning to wonder if all this excess chalk on the cliffs isn't the result of people thinking Sack is the little bucket thing on their ass that they stick their hand in and - viola! - a reduction in the nervous sweat pouring off their hands when they're sketched......

At that point, Mr. Goens and the other jurors knew only the basic facts: that two years earlier, Stella Liebeck had bought a 49-cent cup of coffee at the drive-in window of an Albuquerque McDonald's, and while removing the lid to add cream and sugar had spilled it, causing third-degree burns of the groin, inner thighs and buttocks. Her suit, filed in state court in Albuquerque, claimed the coffee was "defective" because it was so hot.

What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. "It made me come home and tell my wife and daughters don't drink coffee in the car, at least not hot," says juror Jack Elliott.

Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

Why stop with the gear manufacturor. Sue the local government for allowing climbing at the crag in the first place. Then, go after the route's FA'st for setting such a dangerous route. Now, sue the crap out of your first ever climbing partner for not training you to be a better climber so you wouldn't have fallen in the 1st place. Finaly, go after both of your parents for allowing you to climb in the first place.

I'm sure I left out a few key lawsuits, but you can always hit them up ten years down the road for the ongoing emotional trauma they caused you.



Ooh, last minute thought. What are the chances of winning a suit against God for making the cliff? I bet he has a LOT of money.

So, if you're driving along and your car bursts into flames, you wouldn't sue the car manufacturer? Cause after all, driving is dangerous.

Same mentality as when you wanted to return your girlfriend's torn pants. It's bad luck but I will never buy into the idea that it is society's responsibility to compensate you for it. Each of these lawsuits, frivolous or with complete merit, result in us all paying. Choose very carefully...

Each of these lawsuits, frivolous or with complete merit, result in us all paying.

As we should. If we're going to contribute to a defective and dangerous product being commercially viable, why shouldn't we be paying the costs associated with that product? If I'm going to buy a cam, I'd rather pay an extra fifty cents (and have every other purchaser pay that) as insurance that if it fails I will be compensated for my injuries.

What if it's not fifty cents but $50 (on a ~$50 cam) - look at the price of downhill ski tickets and the percenmt that goes towrds insurance. What if the company goes out of business? What if we loose access to the area?
How about the case where there is a known defect and the manufacture issues a recall but you weren't aware of it and were injured/killed as a result.

I am not saying that every suit regarding equipment failure is frivolous - if it can be demonstrated that the manufacturer was aware of a defect and did nothing to rectify it then there are certainly grounds. But what you are suggesting is a form of compulsary insurance hidden in the overall cost. I don't want to buy into it - if you do that is fine -buy some explicit insurance.

I still feel that caveat emptor should be the rule not the exception - especially in a climbing context.

What if it's not fifty cents but $50 (on a ~$50 cam)?

3) I would hazard a guess that the chances of being injured or killed while climbing are exponentially higher on accidents related to being dropped by a belayer, forgetting to tie in fully, or falling onto poorly placed gear and ripping it out than to a manufactures defect or engineering problems.

1) I myself am aware of the specifics of the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. I was alluding to the idea that we are a lawsuit-happy populace. But, I certainly can understand that people would choose to point out the nuances of the actual case.

2) Gear manufacturers making *tons* of money? I'm not so sure this is the case...... From what I understand, most innovations in climbing gear are designed and developed to some point by regular old(although usually quite hard) climbing bums. Not so long ago, they forged the pieces themsel;ves, but now are more likely to take their prototype to an established company and work in conjunction to bring it to the rest of us.
I don't think a venture capitalist would think twice about passing by on the opportunity to get into a climbing gear business on the ground floor..... But, one reason a similar piece of gear might be more expensive from one manufacturer than another might very well be because one of the companies actually incurred the research and development costs, and the other simply got their hands on a prototype at a later point and copied the design.

3) I would hazard a guess that the chances of being injured or killed while climbing are exponentially higher on accidents related to being dropped by a belayer, forgetting to tie in fully, or falling onto poorly placed gear and ripping it out than to a manufactures defect or engineering problems.

However, if someone is really worried about it, my suggestions are:
A - Stay away from the newest item on the market and let others run the field testing. You don't really have to upgrade your tricams to the anondized colors just because they're there, and you won't be able to climb harder routes just because you bought the C4 camelots.
B - Rely more heavily on passive gear. Nuts have a long history of being relatively safe and they work pretty damned well.
C - Buy those nuts from reputable makers. You know...the ones who stake their reputation on their product....
D - Inspect your gear. If you see something you think is funky, check into it. I have seen more than one *major* gear company respond directly to threads posted on this very site. An email, letter or phone call from you detailing your concern will probably not be ignored.

These guys are not some corporate hotshots jetting to distant countries and hiding in offices with an "open-door policy." I know that any of you could call me out on being a gumby know-it-all, with s--- for climbing experience, but come on.....am I just sincerely amazingly lucky to run into some of this countries pioneers and heavy hitters when I am out climbing? And to see that they are people just like me? This happens to nobaody else?

And....what friggin company/product is anyone referring to that is being knowingly placed onto the market without regard for human life? Seriously, money may very well be the root of all evil, but gear sales? Though I suppose, if the biners are marked "Haliburton"......

I would hazard a guess that the chances of being injured or killed while climbing are exponentially higher on accidents related to being dropped by a belayer, forgetting to tie in fully, or falling onto poorly placed gear and ripping it out than to a manufactures defect or engineering problems.