First of all, FredBob: Thanks very much for your participation in this thread. Glad you have a thick skin. Don't let the turkeys get you down.

Me, I've got nothing to say about the law in this (potential) case. Closest I've been to any of this was being the foreman on a weeklong personal injury trial. I.E. - enough to know to keep my trap shut and listen to those who actually have a clue.

What I want to say is in regards to personal responsibility and trad climbing. I absolutely agree that gear should work as advertised. But...

1 - CCH is a machine shop. They've got a great design, but that's all. They don't guarantee 3 sigma.

2 - Gear from any manufacturing company is sometimes faulty. Including companies that have excellent quality control and 3-sigma processes. That's why there are recalls. I doubt a *single* one of the major climbing gear manufacturers has never had a gear recall.

We all know that the failure rate of CCH gear is much higher than it "should" be. And, not surprisingly, it is also higher than the failure rate of larger gear manufacturers, with better QC procedures. And even those other manufacturers produce more faulty gear than Jay's numbers would lead you to believe (obviously, otherwise you wouldn't see recalls!). So where does that leave you, the humble trad climber?

Right where you should be - taking responsibility for your own damn self and your own damn gear! Make your own informed decisions about what gear you think is worth buying, and how to use it. We don't need any lawsuits to accomplish that.

GO

I am hesitant to step into this swamp of misinformation. But, I include the above quotes because Curt's comments are correct and on the point. Dingus' demonstrate the commonly held misunderstanding of the actual dynamic of what transpired with Chouinard Equipment (and how the current CCH problem is significantly different).

I have served as defense counsel in climbing related products liability cases, including one involving Chouinard Equipment (I represented a retailer).

Any case against CCH would involve not only theories of negligence, but those of products liablility (which include strict liability for defective products sold to the public).

While it is unfortunate that legal action may be taken against CCH (and without a doubt against the retailers who happen to sell the cams in question), it would appear a case against CHH would be premised on failures of cams during normal use and lack of proper Quality Control.

While it is true that climbing is dangerous, most climbers take great pains to mitigate that risk. One of the best means of moderating risk of death or injury in a fall is to use protection and a rope. Protection and ropes are specialized climbing tools, without which most of the readers of this thread would not even participate in climbing.

These tools require proper training to use correctly and misuse can -- in certain circumstances -- be a defense to a products liability lawsuit. But when used correctly, within the prescribed perameters of its design, there is little legal excuse for it to fail.

Unfortunately, the ramifications of litigation over CCH cams extend further than just CCH. Retailers who sold the cams are also liable. The result will mean that smaller or start up climbing companies will find entry to the retail market more difficult and more expensive. On the other hand, perhaps the stringent manufacturing and quality control standards seen in companies such as Black Diamond will become so universal that we all will benefit from better and more reliable equipment.

Climb at your own risk! Nuff said.

You cannot build quality into a manufacturing process through QC testing. QC testing simply screens for processes which are out of control. All this talk about CCH's poor QC betrays a lack of understanding of good manufacturing practices.

QC is not CCH's problem. The problem is in their manufacturing process, which should be fairly straightforward and easy to control. The root source of these particular failures, I would venture, is an operator at CCH who fucks it up, and way too often considering the hazards associated with out-of-spec product. It seems obvious - to me, at least - that the guy who does the brazing needs to be retrained or fired.

If CCH has implemented these or other corrective actions, then the problem should be solved. Further, there is little chance that a lawsuit would be successful.

I would much rather have had CCH act like Petzl did in the Sarken recall, but then again, CCH would now be out of business

instead of merely on their way to being out of business?

I think it's fair to say that the consensus is:

They pretty well screwed the pooch.

I thought it was a good one till I noticed the spelling.



Then I laughed even more

As one who is a Tech Advisor in the medical device industry, I disagree to a degree with what you are saying. You can come up with a robust manufactring process but without a good QC system you will not understand where or when the system goes astray, which is why a good sampling and testing procedure is helpful. Quality can fail either due to a shitty initial process or design, failure at execution and then failure to ensure a good QC system can capture those devices outside of spec. All aspects are critical for a quality product. While a good QC system would not have made the braze any stronger, it would have identified those lots that have a faulty braze before going out the door. And if the lots were released, a good QC process includes a complaint handling process that activates a timely response to when a problem is first identified. There are several industries that this is critical in, Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices, and just maybe, just maybe climbing gear.

Along with this is a management that is willing to take their lumps and recall all devices and extend good will to their customers. (an example of this is with first generation Gore-tex was less then optimum, Bill Gore (the owner of WL Gore) was willing to buy back all items made from a first generation material at a huge cost to the company. He did that in order not to tarnish the reputation of the company, and then came out with a vastly superior second (and then third and fourth) generation product. Petzl is doing that right now with the Sarken Crampons. This is how a reputable company should act.

As for a liability case while I hate the way CCH responded to this whole situation, I do not like the precident that it sets....

Me too, and it's so needless. so friggan simple and needless! And stupid. Stupid, needless, pointless and unproductive. They have a great design, it just seems to go downhill after that.

What the f*ck is so friggan hard about sticking them in a device, testing them (REALLY TESTING THEM, not just stamping "TESTED" on the friggan things) and sending them out the door.

Don't sell them if you can't do them perfect like they use to be done.

Dude the next room over is testing ALL of them, pops that single one and tosses it in the trash. What, they catch 1 out of 100 and they ship 100 percent perfect or damn near it?


WHAT THE F*UCK IS SO F*UCKING HARD ABOUT THAT THAT YOU DON'T KILL SOMEONE? HOW TOUGH IS THAT?

God it pisses me off. So needless. so friggan simple and needless! And stupid. Stupid, needless, pointless and unproductive. so needless. so friggan simple and needless! And stupid. Stupid, needless, pointless and unproductive.

Fuck.

Personally, I believe climbing is piquing.

In contrast, I believe climbing is peaking out.

A Lawyers Point of View - Just thought that I would toss my two cents in for all those legal haters out there...If a Cam or other piece of climbing equipment breaks while the user is using it in the manner for which it is intended this is a problem. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise...Furthermore if there is a defect in the Alien Cam the company should stop manufacturing until the defect can be corrected. "Manufacturing Defects" are a TORT cause of action. When a consumer purchases a piece of equipment or any consumer good they have the right to expect that the product is safe for the purpose for which it is intended. For all those who think that ohhh lawsuits are going to raise prices...BS!!! you don't hear BD Cams exploding on impact and they are similarly priced. And its not just lawyers, its the Attorney General, its the Better Business Bureau, its the Consumer Frauds Divisions, District Attorney's Office. , Consumer Watch Groups who work to ensuring product safety. If someone gets hurt because of a manufacturing defect should they just have to live with that? Is that what they bargained for when they spent $60 on a brand new cam? or were they expecting that the Cam would work as designed? Without attorneys and consumer groups out there manufacturers would be making their cams out of dental floss.

billcoe, HB Climbing did not go out of business because of the threat of a lawsuit.
Mal

billcoe, HB Climbing did not go out of business because of the threat of a lawsuit. Chouinard Equipment, Ltd, was sold to its employees for a number of reasons, one of them being the potential threat of a lawsuit being able to access the assets of Patagonia.

Climb safe,
Mal

HB just went out of business.

Original poster here...

Wow, I wasn't aware that HB went our of business. Just got curious and started "updating" myself on this old thread.

I wanted to point out that HB won this case. They were actually (somehow) made aware of that fact before the jury gave the verdict, and settled with Kyle's wife and family before the verdict was given. I found this very honorable on their part, despite the fact that when all was said and done, this was determined to be an accident, and nothing else.

Only HB can say for sure, but walk a mile in the dudes shoes. God forbid you never get sued for making a product which killed another person or contributed to the death of any young person, and have to stare the grieving relatives in the face while at the same time facing total financial ruin. You have to concur that might take some of the fun out - even just a little tinie-bitsy? How about thinking that you might have a line of these people about to form? This is not why you make products.

I personally would rather take a 100 footer and die than get drug through the living hell of a lawsuit which would take every penny I have and put me out of business while accusing me of making a product which killed another person. But thats me, your results may vary. Maybe HB felt otherwise and it didn't bother him. Who can say.

Oh, and one more thing to add, the figure 8 device is no longer a part of my rack, nor will it be in the future, unless I become heavily involved with mountain rescue... There are plenty of other much safer devices out there that meet my needs.

bighaz, thank you for openly and honestly bringing this to everybody's attention. You may have saved somebodies life by doing so, perhaps several lives. You have my highest regards for doing so.


Unfortunately, for the rest of us, the lingering effects of this and things like this will remain. I hope the pain of the loss for all of the family members has softened with time, and again, bringing this up to the top of the heap once in a while might not be a bad thing if even 1 climber sees it and either retires a figure 8, or carefully checks it for cross loading before pitching off the edge.

Wishing you and yours well, and thank you again:

Bill