|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 1, 2011, 3:07 AM
Post #51 of 134
(12163 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
olderic wrote: dynosore wrote: and they forgot to put break fluid in it, tough luck if you die. That must be the problem the customer expected brake The fundamental disconnect here - will maybe not with this particular case as the cause and prevention seem pretty obvious - is the insistence that every accident has to have a "fault". Sometimes stuff happens. The concept that the climber is always ultimately responsible is ludicrous. So I am at fault is some tourist above me clocked me with a rock and turned by brain to mush despite the fact that at the point that he threw the rock from their were warning signs in 3 languages? All you tough guys better stick to your guns and agree that - yup its my fault for choosing to climb. And stick to them again when the young mother and her infant get squashed on their front lawn by the engine falling off the plane - because after all she chose to come out of her house. I'll concede the point that deliberate acts fall outside my philosophy. As for the airplane scenario, you're assuming I think choosing to step out your front door is akin to choosing to climb. I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
wrbill
Jul 1, 2011, 5:57 AM
Post #52 of 134
(12143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 228
|
This is going to fall in the same line as the lawsuit McD's and the hot coffe in the lap. The cup did not say that it was hot and could burn so she got her money. Sad that lawsuits like this happen and I'm sorry to hear that this person was hurt and hope they recover. But in the end we, as rock climbers are the ones that need to keep our selfs safe. I know that if I seen tape on the webbing I would inspect it and make sure that there was nothing wrong. I know that this has been said, but if she had a good anchor only one leg of the anchor would have failed and she would have never fell. This is the fault of her or the group of people that she was with. Rapping with only one anchor????????
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 1, 2011, 7:30 AM
Post #53 of 134
(12133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
At some point - in the store, at home, at the scene of the accident - the victim and / or companion(s) held the webbing in their hands, probably multiple times between the store and the accident site. The tape on the webbing would have been tough to miss. And while it could possibly be misconstrued for a 'marker', no one experienced would ever think that. Anyone experienced would consider anything on the webbing as an anomaly and investigate. It is very hard to imagine such an investigation would not include a attempting to remove or look under the tape. That she or they didn't despite handling it multiple times tells you, along with her age, that they weren't experienced by any standard I can think of. Also, the webbing didn't injure her, the faulty single-point anchor design did. One minor adjustment to the design executed in under five seconds would have prevented this accident.
(This post was edited by healyje on Jul 1, 2011, 10:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 1, 2011, 8:14 AM
Post #54 of 134
(12127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Unless she helped herself to the tape then there is certainly a strong case here. She bought XX feet of XXXX strength tape. She was not supplied with that. Sure she erred in numerous ways but the issue is that she was sold something that was faulty. Climbing is for experienced experts. She clearly wasn't. However the fact is that the flaw in the webbing sold was part of the reason why she was injured.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 1, 2011, 10:01 AM
Post #55 of 134
(12118 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
patto wrote: ...but the issue is that she was sold something that was faulty. It's only the 'issue' after the fact. The real 'issue' here is that she and / or a partner both assembled an inadequate anchor that was not performant in the face of a failed (and uninspected) sub-component of that anchor. You certainly can go on a fishing expedition to attempt to 'assign blame' if you want, but the bottom line is this was an entirely and wholly preventable accident had a single, three-second change to the anchor design been made. It could also have been prevented if a clear anomaly in the webbing had been examined in any detail. Again, the issues of interest and concern [to climbers here] should be the ones which took place prior to and during those roped activities - not events which are unfolding since. I have no doubt our legal system will find someone to 'blame', but that is entirely irrelevant to staying alive when you leave the ground climbing.
(This post was edited by healyje on Jul 1, 2011, 10:07 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Jul 1, 2011, 11:31 AM
Post #56 of 134
(12103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
healyje wrote: patto wrote: ...but the issue is that she was sold something that was faulty. It's only the 'issue' after the fact. The real 'issue' here is that she and / or a partner both assembled an inadequate anchor that was not performant in the face of a failed (and uninspected) sub-component of that anchor. Well actually the 'issue' occurred BEFORE the fact. And the issue that is being discussed before the court what the climber was sold and whether it was suitable and safe. In this case claiming it was 'safe' is hardly accurate. Sure climbers should be responsible for themselves and take actions that make failures less likely. But it doesn't change the fact that the product as sold was not safe to be used in its current state. I hate lawyers and compensation claims. I'm not saying she deserves compensation. I'm just being honest and not letting my opinons of BS lawsuits cloud my judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 1, 2011, 11:50 AM
Post #57 of 134
(12098 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
healyje wrote: patto wrote: ...but the issue is that she was sold something that was faulty. It's only the 'issue' after the fact. The real 'issue' here is that she and / or a partner both assembled an inadequate anchor that was not performant in the face of a failed (and uninspected) sub-component of that anchor. You certainly can go on a fishing expedition to attempt to 'assign blame' if you want, but the bottom line is this was an entirely and wholly preventable accident had a single, three-second change to the anchor design been made. It could also have been prevented if a clear anomaly in the webbing had been examined in any detail. Again, the issues of interest and concern [to climbers here] should be the ones which took place prior to and during those roped activities - not events which are unfolding since. I have no doubt our legal system will find someone to 'blame', but that is entirely irrelevant to staying alive when you leave the ground climbing. Agreed. I have another duo of clients today looking for similar instruction, and I plan to give them the same speech I gave the others—not to prevent lawsuits, but to help them live long, happy climbing lives. Thankfully, though some folks disagree with you and I and GO in this thread, I think we're all of a similar mind when we're out there climbing. We're not thinking, "I'm going to sue this company if my webbing fails." We are thinking, "I need to protect myself." I think.
|
|
|
|
|
hyhuu
Jul 1, 2011, 12:54 PM
Post #58 of 134
(12090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492
|
Sadly this type on accident happens once in a while. About 7 years ago, a party behind me rappelled off a spiced webbing in the Narrow in Zion. Luckily, he survived with what appeared to be a broken ankle and wrist. The webbing looked to be brand new and the group did not look like climbers. Strangely, before the trip I had read about acouple accidents involving spliced webbing.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jul 1, 2011, 2:43 PM
Post #59 of 134
(12067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
j_ung wrote: bearbreeder wrote: j_ung wrote: Of course I don't pull test every single piece of pro. But I damned well, one, make sure I don't commit to it with nothing between me and the ground but that piece, or two, understand that falling may have utterly dire consequences resulting from, in part, the failure of that gear. sure you do ... its called clipping the 2nd bolt ... or even the 3rd in quite a few climbs if yr gear fails then or before yr likely grounding Did you read that short paragraph past the first sentence and a half? The relevant part: "...or two, understand that falling may have utterly dire consequences resulting from, in part, the failure of that gear." I know this consciously and unconsciously every single time I climb above a first or second bolt (and sometimes the third). If I can't accept that risk, I don't leave the ground. The risk of gear failing through no fault of your own exists. Surely, you don't disagree with that, right? It may be the manufacturer's fault that the gear failed, but you own the resulting consequences of it entirely. You chose to climb. You knew the risk existed. I see this subject as existing on two levels, at least in my mind. On one hand, I totally agree that if you aren't willing to accept you might die climbing, you shouldn't do it. I worked in QC for years so I'm under no delusion that manufacturing errors don't happen, even in tightly controlled processes. A cam could fail and I could die. What (I thought) we're discussing here is legal liability. A shop sold someone a spliced piece of webbing. The spool had a warning sticker on it. They did not warn the inexperienced person that the webbing was spliced. They DO have some responsibility here. The UCC is very clear that merchants have a responsibility to know their goods and help jane q. public select the proper goods. If this were some resale by a private individual over eBay then I would say the case is bogus. But it wasn't; it was a mountaineering shop. I can't seriously believe people think that manufacturers of climbing gear have no liability if they produce gear that fails below its rated strength and injures/kills someone. From a legal standpoint that's just not true, and from a common sense standpoint I just cannot agree.....
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 1, 2011, 2:44 PM
Post #60 of 134
(12066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
j_ung wrote: Thankfully, though some folks disagree with you and I and GO in this thread, I think we're all of a similar mind when we're out there climbing. We're not thinking, "I'm going to sue this company if my webbing fails." We are thinking, "I need to protect myself." I think. With some of the attitudes here, and what seem like willful attempts to shirk responsibility onto someone else, I'm really not so sure. Even if it's subtle, that's gotta bleed over into these folks' mentality at least a little. I mean, there seems to be a very strongly held belief by some of the posters here that the equipment must keep them safe, otherwise they have been betrayed. I know that if I really believed that, I would climb differently than I do. Don't get me wrong, I rely on my equipment to a degree. But only to the degree that I trust myself to verify it. GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 1, 2011, 2:58 PM
Post #61 of 134
(12059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cracklover wrote: I mean, there seems to be a very strongly held belief by some of the posters here that the equipment must keep them safe, otherwise they have been betrayed. I know that if I really believed that, I would climb differently than I do. Don't get me wrong, I rely on my equipment to a degree. But only to the degree that I trust myself to verify it. So do you pull test every piece of gear you buy? Jay
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Jul 1, 2011, 3:10 PM
Post #62 of 134
(12056 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
j_ung wrote: snoopy138 wrote: and if it turns out your belay device or rope has a strange, not easily discoverable defect that causes what should be a 10 ft. fall on an otherwise safe sport climb to turn into a 50 ft. meatdecking? that's still the climbers fault? bullshit. what makes climbing gear different from every other manufactured piece of equipment that there's no duty on the manufacturer to not sell a defective product? The climber's fault? No. Is the climber responsible for the situation he or she is in? Yes. what makes climbing different from every other aspect of society?
|
|
|
|
|
surfstar
Jul 1, 2011, 4:14 PM
Post #64 of 134
(12031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 31, 2011
Posts: 206
|
Haven't read every single post, but most of them. There is no legal requirement to build a redundant anchor, although 'best practices' could be argued. She bought webbing rated a certain strength for climbing and it failed. The retailer and the manufacturere will get sued and the court system will divy up the financial responsibility between the two. There will definitely be a payout whether you, or I feel it is warranted.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 1, 2011, 6:58 PM
Post #65 of 134
(11993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
jt512 wrote: cracklover wrote: I mean, there seems to be a very strongly held belief by some of the posters here that the equipment must keep them safe, otherwise they have been betrayed. I know that if I really believed that, I would climb differently than I do. Don't get me wrong, I rely on my equipment to a degree. But only to the degree that I trust myself to verify it. So do you pull test every piece of gear you buy? Jay Nope, just small cams. For everything else, a visual inspection plus the safety record gives me enough confidence to trust them well enough. GO
|
|
|
|
|
sspssp
Jul 1, 2011, 10:03 PM
Post #66 of 134
(11967 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 1731
|
snoopy138 wrote: j_ung wrote: snoopy138 wrote: and if it turns out your belay device or rope has a strange, not easily discoverable defect that causes what should be a 10 ft. fall on an otherwise safe sport climb to turn into a 50 ft. meatdecking? that's still the climbers fault? bullshit. what makes climbing gear different from every other manufactured piece of equipment that there's no duty on the manufacturer to not sell a defective product? The climber's fault? No. Is the climber responsible for the situation he or she is in? Yes. what makes climbing different from every other aspect of society? What makes climbing different is that it is a very dangerous activity and if manufactures were held to the same standard of care as say, automobiles, then they would probably stop making gear. Or rather, stop selling it in the USA. In general I am glad about this and I'm glad that it has usually been very hard for injured climbers to successfully sue someone when they get injured. That said, this spliced webbing accident has happened more than once and I don't see why they have to do it. Either figure out how to get a continuous piece of webbing on a spool or individually wrap the pieces of webbing. I mean if a 1000 feet of webbing on a spool is composed of two 500 foot pieces, why do the 500 foot pieces have to be taped together at?
(This post was edited by sspssp on Jul 1, 2011, 10:03 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 1, 2011, 10:10 PM
Post #67 of 134
(11961 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
Or, maybe realize if you see something anomalous on a piece of webbing - like a piece of tape - then maybe it would pay to investigate...
|
|
|
|
|
snoopy138
Jul 1, 2011, 10:20 PM
Post #68 of 134
(11956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28992
|
sspssp wrote: snoopy138 wrote: j_ung wrote: snoopy138 wrote: and if it turns out your belay device or rope has a strange, not easily discoverable defect that causes what should be a 10 ft. fall on an otherwise safe sport climb to turn into a 50 ft. meatdecking? that's still the climbers fault? bullshit. what makes climbing gear different from every other manufactured piece of equipment that there's no duty on the manufacturer to not sell a defective product? The climber's fault? No. Is the climber responsible for the situation he or she is in? Yes. what makes climbing different from every other aspect of society? What makes climbing different is that it is a very dangerous activity and if manufactures were held to the same standard of care as say, automobiles, then they would probably stop making gear. Or rather, stop selling it in the USA. In general I am glad about this and I'm glad that it has usually been very hard for injured climbers to successfully sue someone when they get injured. driving is also a very dangerous activity. I think in most climbing cases, it's hard to identify whether the gear is actually defective (was a cam properly placed, was it shitty rock, did the climber expose a rope to chemicals, did the rope run over a sharp edge, etc.); but if there's a clear manufacturing defect, I have no idea why we should absolve the manufacturers of paying for the costs of their defective product. CCH was very fortunate nothing too serious happened as a result of their fucked-up aliens, but if it had (e.g., three successive aliens pulling apart causing the climber to deck), then they absolutely should have been held liable.
|
|
|
|
|
sandstone
Jul 1, 2011, 11:45 PM
Post #69 of 134
(11939 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 324
|
surfstar wrote: ... The retailer and the manufacturere will get sued and the court system will divy up the financial responsibility between the two. There will definitely be a payout whether you, or I feel it is warranted. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, in the unlikely event it goes all the way to court. If the retailer is a big company, they will probably settle to keep it out of court. The labels manufacturers put on their spools regarding splices is pretty darn clear, so it seems that would shift more (all?) of the blame onto the retailer. I agree with all the other opinions that the responsibility should be on the climber, but courtrooms don't play by climbers rules.
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jul 2, 2011, 4:57 AM
Post #70 of 134
(11918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
cracklover wrote: olderic wrote: You don't seem to be laughing. But you never did have much of a sense of humor when someone disagreed with you. break vs. brake IS funny especially in this context. Well I happened to find all your misspellings funny, given the context they were in. But then again, I do have a pretty dumb sense of humor, as you point out. Except that I think my humor probably sucks whether I agree with you or not! In reply to: What if you choose to climb in a shooting behind a shooting range? What if instead of someone throwing a rock one spontaneously falls? You can always concoct an argument that choosing to be where you are when something happens is your choice. And it gets pretty silly. Yeah, it does get silly. But you are the one concocting silly scenarios, not me. I'm merely saying that in an actual climbing scenario, I am responsible for my climbing. It's not macho, it's fact. No-one else will save my sorry ass if I fuck up. That's pretty much what it boils down to. GO the fact that you consider your gear breaking to be a personal fuckup is pretty much the definition of machismo. I think the store fucked up. Same things that have already been stated. And furthermore, I can totally see a tape splice being strong enough for one to snap the webbing between ones's hands and nothing feel funny. If one wasn't used to handling webbing. and to everyone screaming redundancy: I'd rap off of a length of brand new webbing tied around a good tree. come on, you wouldn't?
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 2, 2011, 5:26 AM
Post #71 of 134
(11898 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
surfstar wrote: Haven't read every single post, but most of them. There is no legal requirement to build a redundant anchor, although 'best practices' could be argued. She bought webbing rated a certain strength for climbing and it failed. The retailer and the manufacturere will get sued and the court system will divy up the financial responsibility between the two. There will definitely be a payout whether you, or I feel it is warranted. No, it did not fail. The user did though.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 2, 2011, 5:28 AM
Post #72 of 134
(11897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
drivel wrote: cracklover wrote: olderic wrote: You don't seem to be laughing. But you never did have much of a sense of humor when someone disagreed with you. break vs. brake IS funny especially in this context. Well I happened to find all your misspellings funny, given the context they were in. But then again, I do have a pretty dumb sense of humor, as you point out. Except that I think my humor probably sucks whether I agree with you or not! In reply to: What if you choose to climb in a shooting behind a shooting range? What if instead of someone throwing a rock one spontaneously falls? You can always concoct an argument that choosing to be where you are when something happens is your choice. And it gets pretty silly. Yeah, it does get silly. But you are the one concocting silly scenarios, not me. I'm merely saying that in an actual climbing scenario, I am responsible for my climbing. It's not macho, it's fact. No-one else will save my sorry ass if I fuck up. That's pretty much what it boils down to. GO the fact that you consider your gear breaking to be a personal fuckup is pretty much the definition of machismo. I think the store fucked up. Same things that have already been stated. And furthermore, I can totally see a tape splice being strong enough for one to snap the webbing between ones's hands and nothing feel funny. If one wasn't used to handling webbing. and to everyone screaming redundancy: I'd rap off of a length of brand new webbing tied around a good tree. come on, you wouldn't? I don't know about the "machismo" part, but I'm with you on the rest. The store fucked up big time and should be held accountable. And I've rapped off a lot worse than a single new piece of webbing around a good tree. Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay
|
|
|
|
|
drivel
Jul 2, 2011, 5:34 AM
Post #73 of 134
(11893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2010
Posts: 2459
|
jt512 wrote: drivel wrote: cracklover wrote: olderic wrote: You don't seem to be laughing. But you never did have much of a sense of humor when someone disagreed with you. break vs. brake IS funny especially in this context. Well I happened to find all your misspellings funny, given the context they were in. But then again, I do have a pretty dumb sense of humor, as you point out. Except that I think my humor probably sucks whether I agree with you or not! In reply to: What if you choose to climb in a shooting behind a shooting range? What if instead of someone throwing a rock one spontaneously falls? You can always concoct an argument that choosing to be where you are when something happens is your choice. And it gets pretty silly. Yeah, it does get silly. But you are the one concocting silly scenarios, not me. I'm merely saying that in an actual climbing scenario, I am responsible for my climbing. It's not macho, it's fact. No-one else will save my sorry ass if I fuck up. That's pretty much what it boils down to. GO the fact that you consider your gear breaking to be a personal fuckup is pretty much the definition of machismo. I think the store fucked up. Same things that have already been stated. And furthermore, I can totally see a tape splice being strong enough for one to snap the webbing between ones's hands and nothing feel funny. If one wasn't used to handling webbing. and to everyone screaming redundancy: I'd rap off of a length of brand new webbing tied around a good tree. come on, you wouldn't? I don't know about the "machismo" part, but I'm with you on the rest. The store fucked up big time and should be held accountable. And I've rapped off a lot worse than a single new piece of webbing around a good tree. Does anybody know what one of these tape splices looks like? Does it completely hide the fact that the webbing is not continuous? Jay Well, I personally do not know what tape splices on webbing spools look like, because I've been climbing for 10 years and I've never seen one.
|
|
|
|
|
healyje
Jul 2, 2011, 5:38 AM
Post #74 of 134
(11886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2004
Posts: 4204
|
drivel wrote: ...the fact that you consider your gear breaking to be a personal fuckup is pretty much the definition of machismo. The fact that you don't simply says you're not getting it, and not getting it at your peril.
drivel wrote: I think the store fucked up. Same things that have already been stated. And furthermore, I can totally see a tape splice being strong enough for one to snap the webbing between ones's hands and nothing feel funny. If one wasn't used to handling webbing. Irrelevant. What is relevant was the webbing was in an obvious anomalous state and that anomaly wasn't investigated resulting unnecessary and avoidable injuries. Nothing about the manufacture or sale of the webbing is relevant, only it's unexamined use. No warranty or legal action will ever undo the consequences of those injuries.
drivel wrote: ...and to everyone screaming redundancy: I'd rap off of a length of brand new webbing tied around a good tree. come on, you wouldn't? A piece of brand new webbing with tape on it? Really? Look at it this way, when you reach for a piece of tape, why is it you're doing that? I don't know about you, but when I want tape, it's to join two things. If the fact that tape is inappropriate on a piece of climbing webbing is lost on you then I will not be surprised if I'm reading about you here in the accident forum some day. It's even more frightening that you'd make light of redundancy in anchors - frightening, and either naive or incredibly stupid. In fact, if you intend to persist in this kind of thinking I'd very much suggest you forget about climbing entirely.
(This post was edited by healyje on Jul 2, 2011, 5:42 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Jul 2, 2011, 6:19 AM
Post #75 of 134
(11880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
I find myself with a leg on either side of this particular fence. On the one hand, I know full well that I could be hurt or killed in any number of ways while out climbing and I accept that risk. If I am hurt or killed, I have no real cause for complaint because I willfully placed myself in harms way for the recreational pursuit of pleasure. But that is all something of a philosophical ideal. On the other hand, someone who manufactures and sells a good, any good really, has a well established legal, and I would also argue ethical, obligation to produce a good that will perform as advertised. At least I feel that is the case here in the U.S. Unfortunately I'm not really sure how to reconsile the two, but I fear that when you start concretely placing responsibility for a climbers fate anywhere other than squarely on the climber, you risk diluting the emphasis on individual autonomy that has shaped climbing from the beginning. Is that not a bad thing? What we do is deadly serious and when you leave the ground, you go alone. You live or die by the choices you make and while this rather severe and stoic insistence on personal accountability may seem an illogical extreme, it is intended to serves as guard against the alternative attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|