|
drfelatio
Nov 15, 2006, 6:00 PM
Post #26 of 53
(4121 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
In reply to: Gear manufacturers have this little thing called disclaimers: i.e. "By using this product you agree not to hold us accountable for anything bad that happens, including gear failure."
Even due to faulty manufacture?
|
|
|
|
|
breaksnclimbs
Nov 15, 2006, 6:07 PM
Post #27 of 53
(4118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2003
Posts: 203
|
In reply to: I understand that, for the most part, I am ultimately responsible for my own safety when it comes to rock climbing.
Wrong buddy. . . You are COMPLETELY responsible for your own safety when rock climbing.
There are no exceptions.
To forget this is to invite disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Nov 15, 2006, 6:12 PM
Post #28 of 53
(4110 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
From http://www.safeclimbing.org/about_overview.htm
Bolts are not regulated or certified and may break
Bolts used for outdoor rock climbing in the U.S. have historically not been regulated or certified in any way. Historical practice is to use bolts which are nowhere near any "reasonable" level of safety compared to the standards of modern society, and even the bolts used now to establish new routes and replace old bolts are not certified or regulated in any way. Limitations due to ease and speed and type mean that even many bolts used by the ASCA are nowhere near what would be considered acceptable safety margins in other walks of life such as the modern construction industry. The ASCA is a bit of a misnomer, because climbing is (obviously) not a "safe" thing to do. Old deteriorating bolts are potential death traps even for experienced climbers, and the ASCA seeks to replace them with well camouflaged stainless steel bolts which will not rust, and are easily removable/replaceable in the future. No bolt is ever guaranteed, and trusting a bolt with your life is always a gamble.
Avalanches, rock fall, incorrect installation, freeze/thaw cycles, manufacturing defects, and climbers attempting to remove the bolt with tools can all be the cause of messed up bolts. Bolts are technically speaking "abandoned property" and not regulated by any government agency or any organization.
Bolts replaced by the ASCA may break
The ASCA is an entirely volunteer effort to do maintenance and the bolts placed by the ASCA are in no way guaranteed and may fail.
If you are seeking security, DO NOT CLIMB. To quote Helen Keller, "Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all." Climbing of any type inherently involves the risk of death. Those hiding their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own actions behind the current legal system of the U.S. should never attempt to climb anything.
(This post was edited by boltdude on Nov 17, 2006, 1:28 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Nov 15, 2006, 6:25 PM
Post #29 of 53
(4099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
In reply to: In reply to: I understand that, for the most part, I am ultimately responsible for my own safety when it comes to rock climbing. Wrong buddy. . . You are COMPLETELY responsible for your own safety when rock climbing. There are no exceptions. To forget this is to invite disaster.
Really? Then what do you need a belayer for? The fact is there are some parts of climbing that are beyond our control and that our safety relies upon certain levels of trust. Trust in our belayers to catch us. Trust in our gear to withstand the loads we put upon them. [EDIT] And by this I mean I trust my rope not to snap in half when I fall on it. I trust my slings to hold 22kN when they say they will. Stuff like that. [/EDIT] While it is true that that trust ultimately comes down to our decisions, when we routinely put our lives in other people's hands, I find it difficult to say that my safety is COMPLETELY my responsibility.
However, I think we're also splitting hairs a little bit here. For the most part you and I are saying the same thing...I think...
(This post was edited by drfelatio on Nov 15, 2006, 6:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
c4c
Nov 15, 2006, 6:25 PM
Post #30 of 53
(4099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 1279
|
you might have a case if your lawyer could prove that the route setter placed a bad bolt knowingly, with intent to harm. unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
breaksnclimbs
Nov 15, 2006, 7:47 PM
Post #31 of 53
(4067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2003
Posts: 203
|
[reply
Really? Then what do you need a belayer for? The fact is there are some parts of climbing that are beyond our control and that our safety relies upon certain levels of trust. Trust in our belayers to catch us. Trust in our gear to withstand the loads we put upon them. [EDIT] And by this I mean I trust my rope not to snap in half when I fall on it. I trust my slings to hold 22kN when they say they will. Stuff like that. [/EDIT] While it is true that that trust ultimately comes down to our decisions, when we routinely put our lives in other people's hands, I find it difficult to say that my safety is COMPLETELY my responsibility.
However, I think we're also splitting hairs a little bit here. For the most part you and I are saying the same thing...I think...Good point however, I still disagree. You have a belayer "in case you fall". If he drops you do you sue?? And you're absolutely right, we do trust our gear and belayer (and bolts). The difference is, you know how much experience your belayer has, you know how old your slings are, you know if your rope has been in contact with chemicals. It's kinda blind faith when you go sport climbing.
You don't KNOW how long the bolts have been there, you don't KNOW the experience of the installer, you don't KNOW how freeze thaw cycles, water and other factors have affected the bolts. It is your risk.
I know in Eldo a route called Paris Girl had the lower bolts sabbotaged ( sneaky cut at the bottom of the hanger) . If someone would have gotten hurt on that should they be able to SUE Cristian Griffith or Colorado State Parks, neither of which had anything to do with the condition of the bolt??
ps. and don't stick your tongue out at me 
|
|
|
|
|
breaksnclimbs
Nov 15, 2006, 7:50 PM
Post #32 of 53
(4066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2003
Posts: 203
|
In reply to: If you are seeking security, DO NOT CLIMB. To quote Helen Keller, "Life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all." Climbing of any type inherently involves the risk of death. Those hiding their unwillingness to take responsibility for their own actions behind the current legal system of the U.S. should never attempt to climb anything.
EXACTLY!!!
(This post was edited by breaksnclimbs on Nov 15, 2006, 7:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 15, 2006, 8:06 PM
Post #33 of 53
(4054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: Even due to faulty manufacture?
Moot point. You'll never be able to prove faulty manufacture of any bolt in the wild. If it's been in the rock unattended for a few hours, there's no telling what may have happened. Never mind a few years.
Completely pointless line of conjecture. The situation remains: No excuses. Accept the risk and clip the bolt, or back off the climb. My personal preference is to back the bolt up with a piece or two if I have doubts about it.
|
|
|
|
|
BirdDog
Nov 15, 2006, 9:18 PM
Post #34 of 53
(4028 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2006
Posts: 9
|
If my memory serves me - yes there has been lawsuits regarding bolt failure. In Washington State, there is the Peshastin Pinnacles State Park. This was a popular climbing area owned by an apple ochardist near Levenworth. In the mid 70's my partners and I used to hitch hike over there from Seattle after school on Fridays and camp on the land. The owner just asked we not pick apples off the trees, ones on the ground were OK. The owner closed the land in 1986, due to either a lawsuit of the threat of one, and lots of garbage. The land was purchased by the Trust for Public Land and donated to the State for a Park in the mid 90's. I believe the Access Fund was instrumental in bolting the routes as there a few cracks for pro. Bolting is now prohibited, but the routes have adequate pro.
Possibly someone from The Access Fund or Trust for Public Land could verify the lawsuit part.
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Nov 15, 2006, 9:20 PM
Post #35 of 53
(4027 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
In reply to: Good point however, I still disagree. You have a belayer "in case you fall". If he drops you do you sue?? And you're absolutely right, we do trust our gear and belayer (and bolts). The difference is, you know how much experience your belayer has, you know how old your slings are, you know if your rope has been in contact with chemicals. It's kinda blind faith when you go sport climbing. You don't KNOW how long the bolts have been there, you don't KNOW the experience of the installer, you don't KNOW how freeze thaw cycles, water and other factors have affected the bolts. It is your risk. I know in Eldo a route called Paris Girl had the lower bolts sabbotaged ( sneaky cut at the bottom of the hanger) . If someone would have gotten hurt on that should they be able to SUE Cristian Griffith or Colorado State Parks, neither of which had anything to do with the condition of the bolt?? ps. and don't stick your tongue out at me
That is an excellent point about sport climbing and the blind faith we must have in those bolts. In fact, a friend of mine is much more afraid of sport climbing than he is trad and would much rather fall on his own gear than on a bolt. His faith in his placements outweighs his faith in the bolts.
Your story about the sabotaged bolt: Spooky. What sick coward would do that? As for Griffith and/or the State Park Service, I certainly don't think they should be sued, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. If a lady can sue McDonald's cause her damned coffee was too hot then you can sue over anything. This is America...
Now your case is slightly different in that any injury/death would be the direct consequence of an act which may be deemed criminal. At least that is what I infer from your use of the word "sabotage." An earlier post made a very valid point stating that if a lawyer could prove that a bolter had knowingly installed a bolt with the intent to harm, then that case might have merit. So to expand on that, if Cristian Griffith or the Colorado State Parks had known of the damage but had done nothing about it, could they be held liable? I dunno. I'm not a lawyer. Again, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here.
P.S. and don't you wink at me! 
To ja1484:
In reply to: Moot point. You'll never be able to prove faulty manufacture of any bolt in the wild. If it's been in the rock unattended for a few hours, there's no telling what may have happened. Never mind a few years. Completely pointless line of conjecture. The situation remains: No excuses. Accept the risk and clip the bolt, or back off the climb. My personal preference is to back the bolt up with a piece or two if I have doubts about it.
Some excellent points in there as well. You're absolutely correct in that climbing involves the acceptance of risk. If we can't accept that risk, then we should stay home and play video games instead. And I absolutely agree that in accepting that risk we also accept the responsibility to mitigate it. Our vigilance for safety must never waver. However, I stick by my assertion that our safety is never completely in our own hands. That, too, is a risk we must accept. So switching gears a little here, the fundamental question that I've been trying to raise is: Should gear manufacturers and route bolters bear any responsibility in ensuring our safety? Again, I bring up the example of faulty manufacture. While your assertion that that point is moot may be applicable for bolts (I'm not a metallurgist or an expert of any kind in that field so I can't speak to the validity of your assertion), is it applicable for, say, cams? We all know there have been documented reports of defective gear that have had to be recalled (e.g. some Aliens and Trango MaxCams). Should such a defect lead to an injury or death, could a manufacturer be held liable for such a failure? While your point about disclaimers is wholly relevant, I don't believe they give a manufacturer carte blanche to produce a faulty product without any consequences whatsoever. But that's just an assumption on my part. Like I said, I'm no lawyer. But manufacturers and bolters can and do screw up sometimes. Is that within the realm of acceptable risk?
(This post was edited by drfelatio on Nov 15, 2006, 9:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
rohr
Nov 15, 2006, 10:59 PM
Post #36 of 53
(3995 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 8
|
In many states landowners who allow recreation on their land without charging a fee are liable only for gross negligence.
For example, Virginia has a statute that provides that "a landowner [who does not charge fees] shall owe no duty of care to keep land or premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, ... rock climbing..." By giving permission to use the land the landowner does not "impliedly or expressly represent that the premises are safe for such purposes" or "assume responsibility for or incur liability for any intentional or negligent acts of such person or any other person" (with some exceptions, of course). Code of Virginia 29.1-509.
Fortunately rock climbers aren't the only ones who worry about access. Hunting groups have been instrumental in getting laws like this passed.
In response to the original question, I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that there have been injured climbers who have tried to sue everyone they can think of. An earlier poster searched online databases for cases and didn't turn up much. Keep in mind that many lawsuits don't result in legal opinions that would turn up on Lexis or Westlaw. Trial courts usually don't write opinions, and you probably won't find anything if the suit is dismissed or settled early in the process. You usually only get full opinions from appellate courts. So there could be a lot of cases out there that you can't find on the legal databases.
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Nov 15, 2006, 11:33 PM
Post #37 of 53
(3990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
Even if some hot-shot lawyer managed to make some bolt-failure lawsuit stick, most climbers who put up new routes have great protection against getting sued: lack of money. Most of these sorts of suits go after big bucks from some agency or corporation, and the lawyers aren't dumb enough to go after some climbing bum with a few thousand in the bank and a 15-year-old 4x4 pickup.
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 16, 2006, 5:24 AM
Post #38 of 53
(3967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
In reply to: However, I stick by my assertion that our safety is never completely in our own hands. That, too, is a risk we must accept. So switching gears a little here, the fundamental question that I've been trying to raise is: Should gear manufacturers and route bolters bear any responsibility in ensuring our safety? Again, I bring up the example of faulty manufacture. While your assertion that that point is moot may be applicable for bolts (I'm not a metallurgist or an expert of any kind in that field so I can't speak to the validity of your assertion), is it applicable for, say, cams? We all know there have been documented reports of defective gear that have had to be recalled (e.g. some Aliens and Trango MaxCams). Should such a defect lead to an injury or death, could a manufacturer be held liable for such a failure? While your point about disclaimers is wholly relevant, I don't believe they give a manufacturer carte blanche to produce a faulty product without any consequences whatsoever. But that's just an assumption on my part. Like I said, I'm no lawyer. But manufacturers and bolters can and do screw up sometimes. Is that within the realm of acceptable risk?
I think it's pretty much like this:
Gear manufacturers have an obligation to make gear that functions properly. This stems from many reasons:
1- Without certification, their gear most certainly won't be sold by major retailers. The interest of the business.
2- To gain certification, the gear must perform as advertised. Therefore...see #1
3- If a manufacturer consistently produced faulty gear, this information would make its way into the zeitgeist, and that manufacturer wouldn't be around long (witness the recent CCH/Aliens hullabaloo). Therefore...see #1
4- There is liability in certain situations. If a company produces a cam that doesn't cam, then they're committing fraud by selling it as such.
The list goes on, but I am lazy.
Re: Bolt vs. Cam Example
Cams are advertised to do what cams do. Bolts are advertised to do what bolts do. Cams perform a camming action in rock which *may* arrest a fall, or may not, depending on usage. Bolts are the same. But the expressed advertisement by the manufacturer is that the bolt is a bolt - you can use it for life support if you want, and generally speaking it's strong enough, but you could also use it to hang a sign on the rock. The point is, it's a bolt.
A cam is really not that different. Yes, it is advertised as a fall stopping device and is marketed to that purpose, but again, can you really prove manufacturing defect? Only if an identical defect is found in large groups of cams, e.g. dimpled Aliens. If a cam umbrellas and rips, who's to say it was defective? How do we know it wasn't just an excessively hard fall on a poorly placed piece?
We can't know, because we can't reproduce the situation, and that's the crux of things. I consider the willingness (sort of) of gear manufacturers to submit to certification processes and their institution of batch testing QA to be good faith moves designed to minimize the risk of defective gear. Programs like 3-sigma are even better. I consider the disclaimer on the gear as fair warning to all climbers that although all reasonable action has been taken, their safety even with proper use of the device cannot be guaranteed.
To sum it, I suppose, gear manufacturers and climbers are in this together. Sure, I suppose one could *try* and go after a manufacturer if a defect caused failure in proper usage. But if the manufacturer did their best, one would simply be hurting their business for no good reason. Is he or she really that eager to forge his or her own carabiners? Because that's what would eventually happen when we start down that slippery slope.
So: Are gear manufacturers liable for defective gear? I say no if their QA process and certifications are up to date. If they have complied with the law, at least here in America, it is the responsibility of the citizen to understand what is guaranteed and owed to them by way of such compliance. In this case, the disclaimer makes clear that that is nothing, but the manufacturing processes and usage data make it clear that you're probably better off giving disclaimer-ridden C4s a shot rather than free soloing.
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Nov 16, 2006, 6:05 AM
Post #39 of 53
(3955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
I did find a case comparing the risks of rockclimbing to autoerotic asphyxiation... does that count?
" Although the district court emphasized that the practice of autoerotic asphyxiation is "risk[y]," 198 F.Supp.2d at 323, 325, 327 n. 6, and UNUM argues that "it was unreasonable for Mr. Critchlow to believe that autoerotic asphyxiation did not present a risk of serious injury or death"
...by arguing that they involve "controlled risks" (id. at 17 (emphasis in original)) and that "kydivers and rockclimbers do not set out to injure themselves"
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Nov 16, 2006, 6:06 AM
Post #40 of 53
(3955 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
I need to go back and pull the report,but as far as I could recall, many years ago, two or three climber fell while resting on chain, I think the bolts broke and they fell some 1000 feet.
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Nov 16, 2006, 6:08 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Nov 16, 2006, 6:28 PM
Post #41 of 53
(3925 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
I don't believe this holds water. Purposely abandoning anything amounts to litter. Using this argument is a convenient way to bail when something goes sour. This attitude that its my route if everything is good, but those bolts are abandoned when something goes wrong, is lame. This also implies that all routes are abandoned, and the FA's have no say on the route. If one is so sure that you can't be held liable for bolt placement, then why not stand up and be accountable for your actions, don't bail. The whole climbing community will stand behind the route setter on this.
I also don't think the USFS would like to hear from the climbing community that all those bolts were placing in the rock are one time use, then abandoned.
Again, I totally believe that no climber should sue, and that we all need to hold ourselves accountable for accepting that climbing is an individual risk we take. We all need to stand up for our individual participation also.
|
|
|
|
|
boltdude
Nov 17, 2006, 1:31 AM
Post #42 of 53
(3894 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 685
|
The "abandoned property" thing is what the land managers say about bolts, it is not climber-generated. Beats me where they came up with that, but it's the government, not climbers, who did.
|
|
|
|
|
layedback
Nov 20, 2006, 7:41 PM
Post #43 of 53
(3846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 6
|
And how about those 1.5" long bolts, home made hangers, chain link "hangers" routes with 40' run outs, ground fall bolt placements... Are we responsible (not liable) for the saftey of climbers repeating a route we have established?
Climb at your own risk and return safely from every trip.
|
|
|
|
|
themadmilkman
Nov 29, 2006, 4:49 AM
Post #44 of 53
(3817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2006
Posts: 510
|
boltdude wrote: The "abandoned property" thing is what the land managers say about bolts, it is not climber-generated. Beats me where they came up with that, but it's the government, not climbers, who did.
It makes sense. You own the bolt (property) and intentionally leave it somewhere with no intent to return and retrieve it. That's abandoned property. More importantly, it limits the liability of the person that placed the bolt.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Nov 29, 2006, 5:30 AM
Post #45 of 53
(3810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
themadmilkman wrote: boltdude wrote: The "abandoned property" thing is what the land managers say about bolts, it is not climber-generated. Beats me where they came up with that, but it's the government, not climbers, who did. It makes sense. You own the bolt (property) and intentionally leave it somewhere with no intent to return and retrieve it. That's abandoned property. More importantly, it limits the liability of the person that placed the bolt.
If I own a refrigerator (property) and interntionally leave it with no intent to retrieve it out on FS land with the door left on it, and a kid climbs into it and suffocates, am liable? Did I abandon my liability?
Edited to add: I wish there were some legal eagles in here that could wiegh in on OP's question. Save me playin the bad boy of what if.
But then they would expect compensation for there time.
(This post was edited by moose_droppings on Nov 29, 2006, 5:37 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
sky7high
Nov 29, 2006, 7:07 AM
Post #46 of 53
(3792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 478
|
So... if I'm getting this right, we all should sue Newton for inventing his stupid gravity...
|
|
|
|
|
ja1484
Nov 29, 2006, 3:50 PM
Post #47 of 53
(3777 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 1935
|
moose_droppings wrote: If I own a refrigerator (property) and interntionally leave it with no intent to retrieve it out on FS land with the door left on it, and a kid climbs into it and suffocates, am liable? Did I abandon my liability?
No, Yes, and good riddance to anyone that stupid. They're no longer polluting the gene pool.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Nov 29, 2006, 4:09 PM
Post #48 of 53
(3770 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
breaksnclimbs wrote: In reply to: I understand that, for the most part, I am ultimately responsible for my own safety when it comes to rock climbing. Wrong buddy. . . You are COMPLETELY responsible for your own safety when rock climbing. There are no exceptions. To forget this is to invite disaster.
I agree. Even though, yes, you vest in your belayer the responsibility to catch you if you fall, your complete responsibility begins far earlier -- at the moment you choose to climb. Picking a belayer is just another decision you make during the process, similar to placing protection or running it out.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Nov 29, 2006, 4:45 PM
Post #49 of 53
(3759 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
^^^true dat. when you get to the top, the pride wells up because you realize YOU accomplished it. sure, there was some sort of pro, an adequately skilled belayer, but your own decisions added up to that moment. those decisions were schooled by generations of other climbers, etc., but don't dilute the responsibility.
also, climbers should tell their loved ones how they feel about sueing land owners, etc. my wife knows if I died rockclimbing due to rock/bolt failure, the worst thing she could do to honor my life is to sue.
|
|
|
|
|
bubbahotep
Nov 29, 2006, 5:13 PM
Post #50 of 53
(3738 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 97
|
How about:
1) Shoot all the fukin personal injury lawyers.
Or as an alternative:
2) Reform the moronic tort law in this country that allows people to sue for things like broken bolts.
3) Take a little personal responsibility.
Or is that beyond the scope of this discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
