Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 101 of total 101 in this topic |
delendaest
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 3, 2010 - 04:10pm PT
|
Supertopo mentions that someone died on Bear's Reach, after his pro failed behind the hollow rock on the first belay station. Does anyone have any more information about that? I've been trying to figure out what scenario could have lead to such an unfortunate event...
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
A better question would be:
How could someone fall on Bear's Reach?
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Big Wall climber
Transporter Room 2
|
|
Folks manage to die ALL over the place, all the time.
They'll find a way.
Monkeys need guidance, I guess. Some of them, for sure.......;-)
|
|
Levy
Big Wall climber
So Cal
|
|
Is this a recent accident? I ask because I know a woman from the SF Bay area who took a lead climbing course a several years ago. Somebody was doing a simulated lead while being toproped from anchors that an "instructor" had established. The anchors were behind a block of rock on a ledge. When the person finished their simulated lead, they lowered off on the anchors the "instructors" had established. While being loweed, the anchors failed & the person was killed. The person hit right next to the gal I know & she was terrified of lead climbing as a result.
The gal I know didn't know the name of the route but this sounds like the same incident. If they had been belayed on their lead rope, they might have not been injured if their protection had held but since there was no second belayer on the lead line, the climber went the distance to the ground. Very sad.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
That was a UC school outing program, wasn't it? About 10-15 years ago? The way that it played out legally was quite interesting.
|
|
delendaest
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2010 - 04:42pm PT
|
how did it play out legally? do tell...
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
If it's the same case I'm thinking of, the friends/family brought a wrongful death suit against the school, but it never reached the trial stage- in the preliminary phases of the trial, the judge threw it out on summary judgment, saying that the participant had signed an Assumption of Risk form that expressly stated that one of the risks of climbing was falling and death. It was noteworthy because, at that time, the value of Assumption of Risk forms was questionable, and it was a high-profile case that established some kind of precedent.
I'm remembering this from the far reaches of my dusty brain, so if someone has more direct experience with it, please correct as necessary.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
It was around and on Haystack Crack. I took a gig investigating it; mainly for the experience. I regret some of my tasks, however. Grey matter at the base has kept me from climbing at the Leap ever since. Lawyers are truly not the kind I choose to be around.
A student lowered off after performing a simulated (top-roped) lead, about the sixth person to use the anchor.
As stated above, the anchor was situated on each side of a huge block on a ledge. Essentially, the way it was set up, jacked each side of the block in order for the anchor to fail. Many other factors other than anchor failure played a role in this, like inexperienced staff, no checking of the anchor by the lead (most experienced) instructor, periodic monitoring of the anchor, a total mis-mash of gear used (not that this mattered on the outcome, like instead of having web long enough to set-up it was a clusterf*ck of girth hitched slings, etc.), poor positioning for such an activity (not really a route there...) and staff was unfamiliar with the venue. edit: not belaying on the actual lead line, it was abandoned...the lead pro would have save him.
The 'side' (the victim's spouse) I worked for won initially, however at the higher level, it was determined that 'anchors do fail.' Long live the rock guides...
edit: BTW, no one could ever find the Waiver or prove that it ever existed, as the program was loosely run.
 ec
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
I know the defense attorneys. One of them told me they had an expert climber assisting them who said the crack moved, letting the gear pull, and that it was not UC's fault. I don't know he/she could have reached that opinion, but such is the nature of expert witnesses. I can probably lay my hands on some info and the court's opinion if anyone cares.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
The defense expert witness was Bela V.
Me for the victim's wife.
|
|
delendaest
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 3, 2010 - 05:06pm PT
|
so ec, you're saying it was on haystack crack, not on bear's reach? so supertopo is mistaken when it mentions someone dieing on bear's reach due to the hollow rock?
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
well, I only know of the one mentioned in the thread, however there could have been others...The one I worked on was on Haystack (in the area).
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"BTW, no one could ever find the Waiver or prove that it ever existed, as the program was loosely run."
I must be recalling a different incident, then, though the circumstances of both of these incidents are remarkably similar. The case I remember involved an anchor in a loose block that displayed clear negligence in how/where it was built, but because it was dismissed via summary judgment (based on the Assumption of Risk form), the case never got to the point of considering that. The program was a UC Outdoor program...
Sorry for the thread-drift.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
I bet you are talking about the same incident.
It did go on for a while, and in the end, the UC's were allowed to continue their programs, which I think were called into question because of the lawsuit?
My memory and info are sketchy.
I shall now consult the great oracle of google.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
Got nothing- what a gyp. I want my money back.
Anyone remember which school it was?
Oh and EC- gray matter will do that to you. How I still climb period takes a healthy sense of denial.
I got weird things in my head, like not carrying ID or a wallet when I climb, because that's one of the first things you have to when you pick somebody up, look for ID so you know who you have.
Anyway, I don't want the reminder.
|
|
phile
Trad climber
SF, CA
|
|
UCSF. The outdoor rec program (Outdoors Unlimited) continued, but didn't do any more climbing-related activities. I was a backpacking guide for OU post-incident--it's interesting to hear some of the details. I had heard it was on Bear's Reach.
p.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
CA
|
|
Bear's Reach has a notoriously sketchy belay. I think it's even mentioned in the McTopo...
EDIT: From the Beta section;
Despite the hollow flakes at the first belay ledge, you can set an extremely bomber anchor there. Simply slot some nuts in the crack recomended by the topo. Slide them in high, then slide them all the way down to the bottom of the crack (about 2 feet from slot to set).
There ya have it.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
Here is the opinion, basically the court said that if you rock climb, you might fall to your death. Thus, when you choose to climb, you assume the risk of falling.
The Regents of the University of California (the Regents) seek a writ of mandate ( Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.(l)), 1 challenging the denial of its motion for summary judgment. It is the defendant in a wrongful death action brought by the widow of Norman Roettgen who was killed during a rock climbing class sponsored by the Regents. 2 The complaint alleged that Mr. Roettgen's fall was the result of defendant's instructors' negligence in placing four rope anchors into a single crack system resulting in the release of the line holding Mr. Roettgen. The Regents moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by [***2] the affirmative defenses of express assumption of risk and primary assumption of risk. Respondent superior court denied the motion, finding triable issues of material fact concerning whether Mr. Roettgen had expressly assumed the risk. As to the [*1043] defense of primary assumption of risk, the superior court held that the Regents, as an instructor, owed Mr. Roettgen a duty of care as a matter of law.
FOOTNOTES
1 Unless noted, further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
2 The suit originally named 12 defendants including individual class instructors and the 4 sponsoring agencies (the Regents, the University of California San Francisco, Outdoors Unlimited, and Millberry Programs and Services). Pursuant to a stipulation, the individual instructors were dismissed with prejudice and the sponsoring entities deemed one, the Regents.
We hold that the action was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. ( [***3] Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 296, 308 [11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2, 834 P.2d 696]; Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 248, 256 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65]). Accordingly, we issue our peremptory writ. 3
FOOTNOTES
3 The Regents fail in their challenge to the ruling that there were triable issues of material fact concerning the defense of express assumption of risk. (§ 437c, subd. (c).)
FACTS
Prior to his fatal accident, Mr. Roettgen had participated in several rock climbing classes organized and sponsored by the Regents: An Introduction to Climbing (May 22-23, 1993); Advanced Beginners (June 5-6, 1993) and Instructor's Training (June 1993). He had previously participated in "top roping," "belaying," and the setting of "top rope anchors." He died during an intermediate rock climbing course, the purpose of which was to give climbers the experience of placing pieces of climbing equipment ("protection") in the rock face of a mountain as they climbed. While carrying out this exercise the students, including Mr. Roettgen, were attached to a "belay line" which itself [***4] passed through a "top rope anchor system," with the other end of the line held by a person on the ground.
Two top rope anchor systems were set up for the exercise the morning of the accident. One was set up by instructor Robert Gould, assisted by Mr. Roettgen, who was qualified as an "assistant instructor" and had trained in setting top rope anchors. The second was set up by Ian McGowan and Connie Veilleux, who were designated instructor and assistant instructor, respectively, on the trip. Top rope anchor systems are considered safe if the anchors within each system are themselves set in two or more separate crack systems in a mountain face. Each of the anchor systems set that day appeared to have been properly installed with anchors in independent crack features, until that set by McGowan and Veilleux failed as Mr. Roettgen was belaying down the mountainside after completing the "placing protection" portion of the morning exercise. The four anchors installed by McGowan and Veilleux apparently had actually been installed in one rock crack system. The anchor devices let loose releasing the rope when a large piece of the mountain face shifted; Norman Roettgen fell over 90 feet to his [***5] death.
[*1044] McGowan and Veilleux each had significant experience setting anchors and they believed their system was "bombproof." Other than the anchor failure, no evidence was presented to suggest that this was a [**924] faulty conclusion, or that Veilleux and McGowan's selection of the site fell below the sport's norms for anchor installation. In fact, they had considered a separate location for the anchor system, but rejected it because they determined that the one in which they installed the anchors was appropriate for the task. 4 They each belayed down the mountain on the rope anchor system that eventually failed and were followed by another student who, having completed his exercise, also successfully used the system.
FOOTNOTES
4 Plaintiff has pointed out that Veilleux stated at her deposition that she and McGowan did not have enough webbing to set anchors at the rejected site. However, she also suggested that such webbing was available to them. In any case, she testified that webbing was not a factor in their ultimate rejection of the site.
[***6] ANALYSIS
CA(1)(1) HN1Go to the description of this Headnote.Summary judgment must be granted if the moving party establishes the right to the entry of judgment as a matter of law. ( Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 573, 579 [37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 653].) On review, we consider the parties' arguments and the evidence de novo. ( Saldana v. Globe-Weis Systems Co. (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 1505, 1511-1513 [285 Cal. Rptr. 385].) "A defendant . . . has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that . . . there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The plaintiff . . . may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto." (§ 437c, subd. (o)(2); Union Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal. App. 4th 573; [***7] Hunter v. Pacific Mechanical Corp . (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 1282 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 335].) CA(2)(2) Supporting and opposing affidavits or declarations must be made on personal knowledge and must set forth admissible evidence; they must affirmatively demonstrate that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters asserted in them. (§ 437c, subd. (d); Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 1995) § 10:106-10:142, pp. 10-34 to 10-42.)
HN2Go to the description of this Headnote.As a general rule, persons have a duty to use reasonable care to avoid injury to others, and may be held liable if their careless conduct injures [*1045] another person. (See Civ. Code, § 1714.) "In order to determine the boundaries of the duty to prevent injury to others in any given case, we consider several factors, including the foreseeability of the harm, the degree of certainty of injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with the resulting liability for breach, and the availability, [***8] cost, and prevalence of insurance." (See Scott v. Chevron U.S.A. (1992) 5 Cal. App. 4th 510, 515; and Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal. 2d 108, 113 [70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561].)
HN3Go to the description of this Headnote.The doctrine of assumption of risk is an exception to the general rule of liability. The watershed Supreme Court cases on assumption of risk are Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, and its companion case, Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 339 [11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30, 834 P.2d 724, 34 A.L.R.5th 769]. In Knight, using primary assumption of risk, the court analyzed the nature of the activity and the plaintiff and defendant's relationship to that activity. For nature of the activity, the court noted that the sports setting is unlike other settings where a duty is owed to all. ( Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th at p. 315.) Participants generally have no duty to eliminate risks inherent in the sport, but will be held liable for increasing the risk of injury. ( Id. at p. 316.) The court then offered illustrations of risks inherent in certain sports. (Injury from a carelessly thrown ball during a baseball game; an extended elbow in a basketball [925] [*9] game; injury to a player from a sliding base runner; a hockey player hit by an opposing player's hockey stick; a player injured during an informal tackle football game.) ( Id. at pp. 316-320.) The court stated that ". . . defendant's liability in such cases turns on whether the defendant had a legal duty to avoid such conduct or to protect the plaintiff against a particular risk of harm." ( Id. at pp. 316-317.)
HN4Go to the description of this Headnote.Additionally, the court stated that ". . . the scope of the legal duty owed . . . will also depend on the defendant's role in . . . the sport." ( Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th at p. 317.) In discussing the defendant's role in the sport the court offered the rationale behind excusing participants from liability in sports cases as being grounded in the notion that legal liability would inhibit the natural play of the game and alter the game's essential nature. The rules of liability must not interfere with the natural fervor with which athletes, amateur as well as professional, engage in sports activities. While "defendants generally have no legal duty to eliminate (or protect a plaintiff against) risks inherent in the sport itself," (3 Cal. 4th at p. 315.) [***10] they [*1046] generally "do have a duty to use due care not to increase the risks to a participant over and above those inherent in the sport." ( Id. at pp. 315-316.) While commercial sponsors and operators of a sporting activity have a duty not to increase the risks inherent in the activity ( Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories, supra, 32 Cal. App. 4th at p. 254), "[t]he overriding consideration in the application of primary assumption of risk is to avoid imposing a duty which might chill vigorous participation in the implicated activity and thereby alter its fundamental nature. [Citation.]" (32 Cal. App. 4th at p. 253.) 5
FOOTNOTES
5 While the question of "duty" is decided by the court and not the jury ( Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 564, 572 [224 Cal. Rptr. 664, 715 P.2d 624]), there are factual predicates to the analysis. (See, e.g., Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 817 [20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 270] [capability of rider and facts concerning array of jumps]; Tan v. Goddard (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 1528 [17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89] [experience level of student jockey and fact of horse's lameness]; Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories, supra, 32 Cal. App. 4th 248 [rubber rafts and aluminum frames used were industry standard, and unmodified; seating arrangement was normal].)
[*11] CA(3)(3) Plaintiff relies on cases involving student/instructor relationships and those involving commercial recreational operators in urging that defendant owed Mr. Roettgen a duty of care simply because he was enrolled as a student in defendant's commercial venture. HN5Go to the description of this Headnote.The determination of duty in the student/instructor or commercial recreational operator cases turns not on the labels given to the sporting participants, but instead on the facts surrounding their levels of experience and/or their relationships to one another in the activity resulting in the plaintiff's injury. ( Galardi v. Seahorse Riding Club, supra, 16 Cal. App. 4th 817 [duty owed by coach to refrain from raising jumps beyond rider's experience absent warning]; Tan v. Goddard, supra, 13 Cal. App. 4th 1528 [duty owed by instructor who directed jockey trainee to exercise a lame horse in reverse direction on rocky track]; Wattenbarger v. Cincinnati Reds, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 746 [33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 732] [duty owed to accomplished young pitcher instructed to keep pitching at tryout despite his report of arm pain]; Yancey v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 558 [33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 777] [*12] [discus thrower's failure to see if field clear is not a risk inherent in sport]; Ferrari v. Grand Canyon Dories, supra, 32 Cal. App. 4th 248 [no duty to enhance safety by changing water raft from industry standard].)
Defendant, as the moving party on the motion for summary judgment, had the burden of establishing that Norman Roettgen was not taken beyond his level of experience and capability in the activity culminating in his fall, and that the risk to him was not beyond that inherent in any top rope climbing [*1047] activity. Defendant met its burden. (§ 437c, subds. (n)(2), (o)(2).) HN6Go to the description of this Headnote.Falling, whether because of one's own slip, a coclimber's stumble, or an anchor system giving way, is the very risk inherent in the sport [**926] of mountain climbing and cannot be completely eliminated without destroying the sport itself. ( Yancey v. Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal. App. 4th 558, 565.)
Plaintiff offered evidence, and argues here, that certain of defendant's course protocols were violated by the instructors. Plaintiff points to the fact that Richard Johnson, the lead instructor, did not double-check the climb site and anchor installations in advance of [***13] the day's activities. The protocol documents were the subject of a timely objection (§ 437c, subds. (c) & (d); Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, supra, § 10:106-10:142, pp. 10-34 to 10-42) by defendant on the ground that no foundation properly authenticated them ( Evid. Code, § 250, 403, 702, 1400). In any case, the protocols did not establish a duty on the part of defendant. (Cf. Evid. Code, § 669, 669.1.) Nor was there any evidence that failure of a nominal 6 lead instructor to double-check the work of two other instructors increased the risk to Mr. Roettgen or that such a procedure was routine for the sport.
FOOTNOTES
6 According to McGowan and Johnson, the designated lead instructor varied on different trips. McGowan had in fact been a lead on prior trips sponsored by defendant.
Plaintiff argues that a duty of ordinary care should apply because of the special dangers posed by the sport of climbing. In Knight v. Jewett, supra, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 320, footnote 7, our [***14] Supreme Court noted "that because of the special danger to others posed by the sport of hunting, past cases generally have found the ordinary duty of care to be applicable to hunting accidents. (See, e.g., Summers v. Tice (1948) 33 Cal. 2d 80, 83 [199 P.2d 1, 5 A.L.R.2d 91].)" Plaintiff urges that the sport of climbing poses similar "special dangers" and that a duty of ordinary care should apply. We disagree. The risk in hunting (being accidentally mistaken for prey by one's companions or other hunters) at issue in Summers v. Tice, supra, is a risk that does not occur in the absence of someone else's negligence. Inherent in the sport of rock climbing is the fact a fall can occur at anytime, regardless of the negligence of one's coparticipants.
Let an peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding respondent Superior Court for the County of Alameda in Roettgen v. Regents of University of California (No. 732063-9) to set aside its order denying defendant's [*1048] motion for summary judgment and to instead enter its order granting summary judgment. The stay previously imposed shall remain in effect until the remittitur issues.
Strankman, P. J., and Dossee, J., [***15] concurred.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
Sheesh- that decision seems really wrong to me.
I read it again later tonight, but it seems that the court was asked to judge something they knew nothing about, not uncommon I'm sure.
My initial reaction is that this was indeed beyond normal top roping risk.
The fact that the anchor held other clients should mean nothing.
Having been a guide for a UC, I can also say that the certification of the guides means very little if anything.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
Interesting, as I had asked specifically for a copy of the Waiver. I was told and read the transcript of the depositions of the UC instructors that no one could produce or remember that the guy ever signed a release. Perhaps, the court is assuming that since he had previously participated and subsequently participated with the UC group that this assumption of risk was implied?
The way I saw it, the implementation of the mock-lead was flawed, as I had found great value in having the lead line being belayed for true effect for the 'leader' (not getting the right amount of rope to clip, etc.) as well as the belayer belaying a leader (empathetic). Instead, the instructors just let the lead rope just hang. The bottom line, had they done so and just had that belay regardless, the guy would be alive.
ec
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
I didn't read the case closely but it appeared the waiver (or absence of a waiver) had no affect. The court just said falling to one's death climbing is an inherent aspect of climbing. So long as the guy who fell was doing things within the realm of his experience he assumed the risk. Apparently, he had taken some classes and helped set up the anchor.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
right...just being there...assumption of risk by association...the piece of paper did not matter.
ec
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
I remember hearing about this when it happened from someone who was present. My initial reaction was that the instructors were somewhat negligent for setting up a top rope using an anchor consisting solely of cams in a crack. I wouldn't feel comfortable unless there were at least a couple of bolts in the anchor.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
Negligence is negligence.
Among those that don't climb, I can see how they would think that the assumption of risk is there. Among those that do climb, isn't the usual assumption that top roping should be 100% or close to it?
The "guides" or "instructors" blew something basic, something that a real guide would never have happen. I could see operator error, a loose rock falls from above, but a top rope anchor set by a competent guide should never fail.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
Cams in a crack would have been fine.
Cams and a Stopper on each side of a boulder sitting on a ledge was not.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
Wow that is bad.
Cams can "walk" out of cracks, especially if there are several climbers top roping & falling on an anchor.
|
|
Gilroy
Social climber
Boulderado
|
|
It was my second visit to the Leap when this accident occcurred and it was the second of three deaths I witnessed that summer. Sharpe & I were down in the trees thinking about the next route when we heard the commotion of this fellow's fall and the attendant reactions on the ground.
Ugly scene when we got there but it was the route in the corner which I think is Haystack and a second leader had started up the corner. The rappell line reached the ground attached to the victim about 15' to 20' right of the corner. Not sure of the victim's line of ascent.
We tried to clear the airway as there were signs of life though it was reported he impacted helmet first and, from the obvious injuries, I believed them. Thankfully EMT's climbing nearby came to assist and stopped us from beginning CPR. We noted the gear from the belay attached to the rope but declined to go up to inspect the belay ledge and retreated to the Strawberry Lodge.
When ec took the lawyers' for the family offer, I was glad a real expert would appear for the fellow. Sorry it still bugs you, lad. Tough work, but....
My thanks.
Keith
(edit) I carry an airway since this incident to this day when out and about.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
Top rope anchor systems are considered safe if the anchors within each system are themselves set in two or more separate crack systems in a mountain face.
This is a red herring- it's perfectly acceptable to build an anchor in one crack, loose blocks are a different story.
McGowan and Veilleux each had significant experience setting anchors and they believed their system was "bombproof." Other than the anchor failure, no evidence was presented to suggest that this was a [**924] faulty conclusion, or that Veilleux and McGowan's selection of the site fell below the sport's norms for anchor installation.
Uhhhh, seriously? Are our norms that fukt up? Other than the fatality- the anchor was fine.
Assumption of risk is a strange one- what is the realistic expectation of survival while top roping?
|
|
Dapper Dan
Trad climber
Menlo Park
|
|
just curious ,
what does it mean to "carry an airway" with you ?
|
|
Gilroy
Social climber
Boulderado
|
|
Good Question: there are fancy technical models but what I carry is a tube with a 1-way valve and a shield of flexible plastic at its mid-point. Makes the decision to initiate mouth-to-mouth breathing easier with the obvious protection against infection from pathogens in bodily fluids.
kg
|
|
habitat
climber
grass pass
|
|
Top rope anchor systems are considered safe if the anchors within each system are themselves set in two or more separate crack systems in a mountain face
Huh?
edit: I like how they put everything in "quotes" which "implies" that they don't know what the "hell" they are "talking about"
|
|
Srbphoto
Trad climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
My first thought after reading the official court document was "God, I hate lawyers!"
Gilroy - they don't recommend mouth to mouth anymore (at least not in my CPR class). I don't want to hi jack the thread. There was a thread about it but I couldn't find it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
Sad. On multiple fronts. Sounds like one more kangaroo judgment from a kangaroo judicial system. (I don't call it a justice system anymore.) Some commentary above makes me nervous, too: An anchor built of only cams is substandard now? News to me. Aughh.
EDIT
Yeah. Compression only. What a relief: Now Gilroy doesn't have to carry his airway anymore.
Pate- Funny as usual. I don't like attorneys either.
I've belayed from that area 50 times since 1995. Funny strange, I always thought the tragedy happened over under Bears Reach, too.
|
|
Gilroy
Social climber
Boulderado
|
|
Srbphoto -
Tru'dat but it is not the universal procedure yet. Some have recently changed and mainly due to the general public's aforementioned aversion to fluid contact. This is first-responder stuff, not necessarily the principles of the professionals. They have equipment to do that job.
Interesting that this is the direction we are headed with CPR training. Keep it simple or... 'avoid the kiss with KISS.'
kg
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
makes me wonder whether there are any real principles of law in this area, or if it's basically just the whims of judges, lawyers, juries.
the judgement cites the doctrine of assumed risk, which i understand currently applies in some states and not in others. i thought it was a universal, but a recent conversation with a legal expert in this area indicates otherwise. perhaps it was a universal at the time of this decision.
--
"considered safe if set in two or more crack systems"
"a large piece of mountain face shifted"
"they believed their system was 'bombproof'. Other than the anchor failure, no evidence was presented to suggest that this was a faulty conclusion, or that Veilleux and McGowan's selection of the site fell below the sport's norms for anchor installation ..."
sounds like the boulder worked loose with multiple lowerings, enough to release all of the pro. a big boulder they thought was heavy enough? to say "a large piece of mountain face shifted" sounds like a judge being pretty nice to the UC regents. a boulder on a ledge is not "a large piece of mountain face".
tell me what i'm missing.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
The UC regents were probably blissfully ignorant of the risks their guides were taking. Their guides were the experts, and they were ignorant, how should the school know?
It sounds like the jury decided against the school, but schools won on appeal. I agree with the jury. These guides sound dangerous.
That's great. It allows UC's to keep guiding rock trips, but maybe the schools should think twice about allowing people who have climbed for a two years or so to teach climbing.
|
|
em kn0t
Trad climber
isle of wyde
|
|
a big boulder they thought was heavy enough? to say "a large piece of mountain face shifted" sounds like a judge being pretty nice to the UC regents. boulders on ledges are not "large pieces of mountain faces". tell me what i'm missing.
Just hearsay but FWIW:
What I heard when the accident was described to me years later was that the anchor was set in two separate cracks; the section of rock between the two cracks appeared solid but was actually detached, and the pro failed when it shifted.
A subtle difference maybe, but certainly a way different picture than setting up an anchor on an obviously detached boulder.
You can imagine it was devastating to the people involved in the class. Talk of negligence can only add salt to wounds that may never heal.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
How big a block are we talking? EC? Microwave? VW Bug?
|
|
Petch
Gym climber
knapsack crack
|
|
just arrived at the leap a week or so before that. first weekend saw a guy take 80+ ft fall on the second pitch of the line. then the following weekend was the accident on haystack. I was headed up to climb and caught up to two climbers carrying a litter. I helped them carry the litter to the base. They said the victim took a volunteer lead fall off of his t.r. anchor, which pulled. he had his cams out and left of the standard anchor station(the double blocks with sling remnants between them). definately a sad situation.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
California courts are, surprisingly, lenient when it comes to sports accidents. There is a judicial philosophy that society is a better place when people are out doing exciting, socially interactive, competitive type stuff. Courts lean towards finding an assumption of risk because finding liability significantly limits opportunities. I'm not saying the case turned out as it should have, just that in these types of cases courts prefer to find non-liability.
Pate, the foregoing took me 3.7 hours. I will send you a bill forthwith.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
On one hand I agree with that sentiment, On the Edge...., but on the other more specific to the case hand, does this allow incompetent guides to kill people?
When you assume risk by hiring a guide, how much do you assume? If they killed clients all the time, they wouldn't be in business. It takes some trust that the guides know what they are doing.
Are we saying the victim didn't do his due diligence? Buyer beware? Maybe this guide program was a ticking time bomb that had not yet had the odds catch up to them?
I'm not a top secret schill for the AMGA or anything, but this sounds like a group of folks with a little experience teaching a group of folks with less.
It seems the appeals court went for consistency with previous cases, while the jury went with the simple negligence?
It looks like the appeals court saw the facts as the guides did nothing out of the usual in a dangerous sport.
Unfortunately, the facts seem to be misunderstood by the appeals court. Setting top rope anchors, or any anchor under a block on a ledge is poor form, to be avoided when possible. A top rope anchor could easily be built in a place where the block could have been avoided.
You get to choose where to place top rope anchors. Way up on an FA in the mountains, sometimes you got to do what you got to do, but guiding and top roping you have choice.
Bummer for the plaintiff.
This reeks of negligence.
I was once a guide for a UC. What if I hurt or killed someone on a trip I was leading? Would I be responsible? Yes, but on the other hand, when I was guiding, I was 19 years old. The school said I was good to go. It seemed reasonable when I was 19.
I guided bears reach and east wall. We were careful, but we weren't real guides. We were climbers, who got paid to take people who knew less than us up climbs.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
It's hard to know what evidence the court had before it. Knowing what I know (as a climber) it seems like gross negligence, which can trump assumption of risk, was a factor that for whatever reason was not considered.
I am going to see one of the lawyers who represented uc tomorrow, I'll ask how it went down.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
It's an interesting one, and a case that we would probably heard more about if it went the other way.
It looks like negligence to me, but I can see the difficulty in proving that.
Guides took rock course one, then intermediate climbing course, then guide course= qualified.
Was there four pieces? Check. Two cracks, check. Had the anchor been weighted. Check.
But wait, what about the quality of the crack/rock? How do you quantify/qualify that?
Send EC or a jury of climbers up there, different out come possibly.
Maybe it looked like a good anchor?
Interesting side note, EC said Bela V. the long time truckee guide, was a witness for the defense. I wonder what he thought of the case?
Either way, it's bed time.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
em kn0t's hearsay report makes some sense. the placements may have been apparently "industry standard", but involving one of those flakes which you hope is not separated, but which, on rare occasions, turns out to be, and which worked loose due to the preceding lowerings. a sharper, more experienced eye might have been suspicious of it. it would be interesting to hear bela's assessment.
|
|
426
climber
Buzzard Point, TN
|
|
The flake on Haystack's top first pitch is actually rather gigantic and doesn't move unless you really shove it or stand on it and kick. It didn't really have any telltale sounds of hollowness when I put gear there.
...there is a perfect solid crack along the base of the ledge just inches to right, but the natural predilection of climbers seems to hit the vertical crack in between the block and the wall. I probably did this 10 or 15 times before realizing the block was actually loose and changing my whole belay scheme there..
I was considering soloing the line one time but had some general bad feelings about it so I went with the gut check. A partner met me the next day and much to my chagrin, the blood from the accident was still on the rock...I was sketched leading the whole rest of the climb even though I knew it by heart at that time...
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
JR- When I "guided" for the UC's, they only offered a few courses, beginning, and intermediate, along with some specific trips.
Guides had a weekend long guide school, but when I think back to how inexperienced I was when I took the two day guide course, it's fairly scary. A kid who climbs 5.8 comfortably on gear, leads know nothing clients on 5.7? Is this really a good idea?
When you are a kid, it all seems normal.
For the beginner course, it was top roping. For the intermediate, there might be a clinic on placing gear, and then a multi-pitch climb.
The issue was that people took the beginner course and then thought they could take the intermediate course as a sort of progression that people are used to in structured environments.
Some times people could, sometimes people couldn't. It depended on their natural ability to climb. So you went top-roping once, does that mean you can follow bear's reach? You'd be surprised how hard bear's reach is for people who don't climb. I know I was.
As for the guides, we meant well and took our jobs seriously, but were we truly prepared/qualified?
That's the debate in which I believes may entail the negligence on the part of the guides and the schools that hire and "train" the guides.
A lack of industry standards, however, probably gives the defense a lot of wiggle room.
Also- JR- I don't know about the UCSF Instructor course, we didn't offer that to paying clients, but again I can see someone doing this as part of a progression laid out in a structured environment that many are used to, but doesn't necessarily apply in the real world of climbing.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Another lawyer weighing in here. I'm kind of in Tom's and ontheedge's camp. While I agree the CA courts have established something akin to assumption of risk for outdoor/recreational activites. Started with the water skiiing case whose name escapes me.
In any event, the problem I have with applying that doctrine too strictly in cases like this one is that--like Tom I think it was had said--is that is effectively insulates anyone who might have been negligent, even grossly negligent simply based on the assumption that "climbing is risky." However, that assumption ignores another basic fact, and that is climbing can also be safe if done properly.
Just because you assume some of the unavoidable risks of climbing, such as falling while climbing, rock fall, objective hazards, doesn't mean you assume that the person you're climbing with--who holds themselves out as experienced and safe--are actually going to be. When you're an experienced climber it's kind of caveat emptor. But when you're inexperienced, you don't have the knowledge to know when someone's putting you in a dangerous place. In that instance, I think it's wrong for the court's to stay "you should have known better." Does that open a pandora's box in terms of liability? Maybe. But it also strikes me as fundamentally unfair to deny a person redress when they've clearly been hurt in a wrongful way.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Thanks for posting the full text of the decision- there are several very interesting comments in it, such as this one:
"Defendant, as the moving party on the motion for summary judgment, had the burden of establishing that Norman Roettgen was not taken beyond his level of experience and capability in the activity culminating in his fall, and that the risk to him was not beyond that inherent in any top rope climbing [*1047] activity. Defendant met its burden. (§ 437c, subds. (n)(2), (o)(2).) HN6Go to the description of this Headnote.Falling, whether because of one's own slip, a coclimber's stumble, or an anchor system giving way, is the very risk inherent in the sport [**926] of mountain climbing and cannot be completely eliminated without destroying the sport itself."
It appears that it was the legal concept of Assumption of Risk that was upheld in this case (not a written form, per se). The defendant requested that the case be brought to summary judgment based on the premise that falling is an inherent risk of climbing- while the plaintiff tried to show that climbing should be held to a different standard of duty, the judge felt otherwise, and it ended right there.
To my eye as well, there appeared to be negligence on the part of the leaders in how/where they built that anchor and how it was used. However, the key point of emphasis in this whole legal process was whether falling is an inherent risk in climbing, and the judge felt that it was.
Negligence on the part of leaders is a topic of conversation amongst program managers and legal counsel in recent years- there has been a trend amongst some programs (as allowed by a given state's laws) to include simple negligence on the part of the leaders as a part of a participant's Assumption of Risk. Of course, differentiating simple vs. gross negligence is the crux, but personally I believe there is some merit in this idea. While this case did not expressly show this, it could easily be seen as a precedent for the trend of increased assumption of risk on the part of participants.
Edit:
"In that instance, I think it's wrong for the court's to stay "you should have known better."
Fat Dad, do you really think the court was asserting this in their decision? Perhaps that is the practical upshot to it, but I don't see that that was the intent.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
This case serves to show in the end it boils down to the judgment of the judge. Pretty subjective affair. In this adventure called life.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
and that the risk to him was not beyond that inherent in any top rope climbing [*1047] activity.
I haven't read the whole opinion but just upon the paragraph apogee quoted, this is kind of where I think the judge decided the case. I'm assuming evidence was presented that anchors can and do fail while people are toproping (or at least can be presumed to) and so the judge concluded that this was within [edit: the risk] "inherent" to that activity.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
Is this the pitch the accident occurred on? p1 of Haystack?
|
|
delendaest
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 4, 2010 - 03:02pm PT
|
the first belay station of bear's reach definitely has hollow rock, i've seen it move myself when setting up an anchor. apparently haystack has hollow rock too? the belay stations at the leap leave something to be desired evidently...
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
Here is my 2 cents worth from reading the opinion (and my own experience with this area of law):
The doctrine of Assumption of the Risk [1] has evolved significantly in California over the last 20+ years; it once being thought to have been eliminated by California's adoption of Comparative Negligence in 1975 [2].
In wake of Comparative Negligence, many in the climbing world were concerned that this legal theory (which apportions fault between parties), coupled with the rapid increase in the popularity of climbing, could lead to a rapid increase in negligence lawsuits involving climbing. The fear was that even if a defendant were only partially at "fault" in an accident, monetary ($$) damages could still be awarded.
The two seminal cases which found Assumption of the Risk still applied, particularly in activities that are voluntarily and inherently risky are cited in the decision [3]. The Ford v. Gouin case is the water skiing case someone referred to above.
Climbers generally applauded these decisions as the legal theory was clearly applicable to climbing and would avoid situations where one partner sued another, or a climber sues a climbing school or even a landowner (or the NPS, USFS or other Gov't agency) because something bad happened.
With that said, each lawsuit depends entirely on the particular facts of that case. In this case, the defendants brought a Summary Judgment Motion (SJM) before the case went to trial. Apparently, the trial Judge denied the SJM and the case was tried before a jury who found liability.
[A bit of Digression: I will note that a Jury finding liability (or not) is not indicative of whether you or I would agree on the result. Juries are notoriously fickle and (like the entire Legal System) only provide an approximation of Justice. Anyone seeking "Justice" in our legal system (which I believe to be one of the best and most fair in the World), is setting themselves up for possible disappointment.]
Since the Trial Judge's denial of the defendants SJM is subject to review by the Court of Appeal, defendants sought review. The Appellate decision pasted in above is their written decision based upon a review of the Summary Judgment Motion and all the evidence presented in connection with the SJM by both parties. [I will also point out the error of some unfortunate comment above -- the Court of Appeal is a Three Judge panel (not a single Judge)].
A Summary Judgment Motion is brought when there is not a material dispute as to the FACTS of a case and the Judge may simply apply the law (as she or he interprets it) in deciding the case. A full trial or Jury is avoided. Once the defendant establishes the lack of FACTUAL dispute, and that as a matter of LAW, it is entitled to judgment in its favor, the burden then shifts to the Plaintiff to either raise a Material FACTUAL dispute or that under the agreed FACTS, the LAW entitles Plaintiff to judgment.
It would appear that the Plaintiff's lawyers were unable to present sufficient FACTUAL evidence showing a dispute and/or as a matter of law, under these FACTS, defendant's interpretation of the LAW was incorrect (or inapplicable).
Frankly, it may appear that under the circumstances, we can have differing opinions as to the result, but we neither have reviewed all the Factual Evidence presented nor perhaps taken into account the degree to which the unfortunate climber was: experienced enough to assume some responsibility for (a) checking anchors upon which he relied and/or (b) insisting that he be belayed on the lead line as well, or ???, as well as whether he was more than just a passive student as opposed to one of the group's leaders?
Just some food for thought.
[Edited to add:
--- Yes a Liability Waiver would have eliminated liability even if it was found the defendants were negligent in setting up the anchor; and
--- Climbing is dangerous.]
Notes:
[1] The simple explanation of the doctrine of Assumption of the Risk is that if you undertake a hazardous activity and you are injured or killed as a result, you (or heirs) can not recover damages -- since you knew injury or death were possible outcomes of your voluntary participation.
[2] See: Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975) -- Established the doctrine of comparative fault/negligence and rejected contributory negligence as an absolute defense.
[3] Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296, and Ford v. Gouin (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 339.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
Thanks sketchy.
The one thing I would argue, though I'd like more information, is whether the facts were actually correct.
It seems that this was not a normal top rope anchor- normal top rope anchors don't fail. They have an independent back up. I had slings cut on a poorly set top rope anchor because I didn't anticipate a sideways swing on Donkey Dong? at Castle Rock. I had a back up. That was eye opening for certain.
The facts of the crap anchor do bleed into the assumption of risk.
What if the client asked the guide if climbing was safe, and the guide says yes. Then does it change?
I say this guy, in doing a practice lead, assumed he was doing something safe with the top rope.
Also- anyone have a picture of this block? I might shut up if it's huge.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
What I heard when the accident was described to me years later was that the anchor was set in two separate cracks; the section of rock between the two cracks appeared solid but was actually detached, and the pro failed when it shifted.
The 'boulder' that sits atop the first pitch ledge of Haystack does not or cannot have two separate cracks as it is a separate piece of stone from the main wall. It is quite large (a ton), but not VW sized. There truly is only one 'crack' around the damn thing. The faulty analysis by the persons placing the anchor that the anchor was in two separate cracks was total bullshit and maybe due to their lack of experience. This boulder would be fine for someone belaying a second while sitting or braced on the ledge (body buffer), however questionable for top rope IMO.
Even though the anchor was on Haystack, since the route leans some, they actually were using an area to the side, off-route for their class.
I was deposed for over four hours about this and the initial decision was that negligence played a huge part...unfamiliar with the terrain, poor anchor/no check by the boss/failure, not using the lead line belay, no release form.
Hey, the final decision was in the positive ground for all guides. Twisted justice...
Keith good to know your around!
ec
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
To slightly elaborate on my observations above, the actual facts (if there can be said to be any "actual fact") are not what are determinative in a Summary Judgment Motion (or even a Trial).
What is determinative are the facts/evidence actually presented (and just as importantly -- the manner/skill they are presented) to the Court in the SJ Motion.
Overlay that with the preconceptions of a Judge(s) and the underlying legal policy of Assumption of the Risk -- and the outcome is always an uncertainty.
This is why the vast majority of cases (of any kind) settle before trial and even during the pendency of an Appeal. Uncertainty is the foundation upon which settlements are built.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
What troubles me about the case is that, from a quick glance of it at least, is that it appears that this was decided by an MSJ, or motion for summary judgment. For all you non-lawyers out there, a court will only grant an MSJ if there's absolutely no triable issue of fact. In many civil cases, that's a really high standard to comply with. Here, particularly given that you had two experts testifying with competing points of view, I just can't see the grounds for arguing that there wasn't at least some factual dispute re the underlying facts.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
Fat Dad- I'm with you. It seems that the facts should have remained in dispute.
Or perhaps shittie anchors are legit when guiding because the client has knowledge that they can die while top roping.
|
|
Mr_T
Trad climber
Northern California
|
|
I believe there have been at least 2 fatalities on Bear's Reach.
The first was the UC outdoor program. It was somehow related to UCSF - total bullsh*t anchor behind loose flakes/boulders. This was before 1995. Lawsuit won or not, it doesn't bring your loved one back.
A more recent accident that I assume resulted in a fatality was caused by a lead fall on the last pitch of Bear's (and all those routes that converge there). The leader ran out most of the pitch, had one piece in, fell probably 80'. Severe head injury - possibly whipped backward at the end of the fall. I climbed the route the next day, not knowing about the accident. We learned the details later. Blood was everywhere from about the top of the second pitch up to the belay. We finished the route and took the rest of the day off. I don't know if this guy survived, but I'd be amazed if he did. He apparently was airlifted to a local hospital. This was around 2004. It sounded like he may not have had a helmet on. I'd like to think he recovered.
|
|
Ruthel
Gym climber
wisconsin
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 01:47pm PT
|
so strange to read about my brother's death in such a way
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 02:28pm PT
|
Ruthel, sorry to read about your brother too.
I certainly hope you didn't read anything too offensive on here. It can be a pretty grim crowd at times, but mostly good, well meaning people.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Soda Springs, CA
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 02:43pm PT
|
I missed this thread first time around. I was asked to be an expert for the plaintiff, I offered to do an independent investigation with info that could be used by all parties, but that offer was declined and I refused to do a one sided investigation.
I thought that the investigator for the plaintiff was sleazy, and being in the business of rock climbing instruction at the time, and still, I was somewhat biased. I also called the director of OU to offer my support during what was a hellish time for all concerned.
I am not a lawyer, but I am of the opinion that Rock Climbing is dangerous, and when you participate you are assuming the risk, even of an instructor making a bad mistake. Gross negligence is another thing, but mistakes can and do happen, and I think it would be hard for courts to sort out all sorts of grey area judgment calls.
The idea of risk sports participants assuming risks is why cities can build skate parks, and why I can offer the programs for youth that I do.
I feel very bad for the relatives of the accident victim, and I do think University Programs should work hard to make sure they have highly competent guides, or don't offer high risk activities.
There is a great risk to our society if we become so lawsuit saddled that we cannot offer youth or anyone the opportunity to participate in healthy risk sports.
I am glad that the court back then ruled to uphold the assumption of risk.
Peter
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 03:03pm PT
|
I missed this thread the first time around, too, Peter. While I agree that climbing is dangerous, and we all as a matter of law assume the risk of falling, the court's ruling nonetheless surprises me.
Without reading the plaintiff's briefs in opposition to the Writ and the Motion for Summary Judgment, I'm not sure how they argued this issue. I assume, ec, that your testimony was sufficient to establish that the fall resulted from anchor failure, and that the failure was caused by incompetent placement and inadequate supervision, falling below the standard of care for climbing instructors.
Assuming that was the case, I fail to see how the inherent danger of falling effects an assumption of the risk of incompetent instruction and/or supervision. Without finding that the decedent assumed that risk, there would pretty clearly be disputed material facts (i.e., whether your conclusion was correct) because if there were not, the plaintiff would be the one entitled to summary judgment as to liability.
Very strange.
John
|
|
le_bruce
climber
Oakland: what's not to love?
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 03:16pm PT
|
Sad event on all sides.
Maysho - respect to you for making that expert witness decision on principle rather than pay.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 04:19pm PT
|
Peter, Yes, the investigator for the plaintiff was way sleazy, but allowed me to do my own thing as you would have. There was never any prompting for biased views. He was an ex-cop, injured in the line of duty, turned P.I. I really worked more closely with the attorneys, he just drove the car...
ec
|
|
Gal
Trad climber
a semi lucid consciousness
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 04:53pm PT
|
am of the opinion that Rock Climbing is dangerous, and when you participate you are assuming the risk, even of an instructor making a bad mistake
I disagree. I do not believe that you are assuming the risk of an instructor making a bad mistake.
I really do hope it was NOT negligence, and it was a "freak accident" that no one, no matter their expertise, could have foreseen... otherwise justice did not seem to take place.
I realize it was difficult for all involved, and that everyone wishes they could turn back the clock.
Ruthel-I'm so sorry for the heartbreak and loss you suffer for your brother.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 05:30pm PT
|
IMEWO it was NOT a "Freak Accident."
ec
|
|
Gal
Trad climber
a semi lucid consciousness
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 05:44pm PT
|
yes, EC, I would agree with you based on what has been described so far...
A pic of this belay anchor area might help for better understanding. If anything good can come from this now, it is to learn and understand what went wrong so it never happens again, there or in any other similar circumstance/setting. Clearly something went disastrously wrong, and that is undeniable.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 08:55pm PT
|
I'm fairly astonished at many of the posts contained herein.
Many of them contain words to the effect "without reading the actual information in the case"....and then goes on to pronounce an opinion based upon.....what?
I am not a lawyer, although I respect the skills of that profession, and the rules that govern. I have also been involved in many legal actions involving medical issues as an expert witness, and understand that the details REALLY MATTER.
Here is the key section to me:
McGowan and Veilleux each had significant experience setting anchors and they believed their system was "bombproof." Other than the anchor failure, no evidence was presented to suggest that this was a [**924] faulty conclusion, or that Veilleux and McGowan's selection of the site fell below the sport's norms for anchor installation.
Bold was added by me. NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. Now, after the fact, people can say whatever they want. All that matters is what was said on the stand. As far as the Appellate Court is concerned, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.
Of course, I wasn't there. I've never climbed this route. I didn't inspect any of the gear used, nor the anchor area where the pro was placed.
So, I have no specific opinion as to what happened.
As a person who teaches newbies toproped climbing, I'd hope for bomber anchors 100% of the time by all instructors. I know that it makes me nervous to have people anywhere around anchors I've set up, and for that reason prefer to have about 5 bolts! (as if).
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2010 - 09:58pm PT
|
Sad conclusion nevertheless.
I read through sh*tloads of depositions and I thought the remark of 'significant experience' to be a stretch, as those individuals on the record cited a lack of experience. Obviously, the powers that be had not much experience in ruling on this type of incident. It was like they read a different depo to get that remark. The two were subordinates as well and the head honcho never checked their work...
ec
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 01:30am PT
|
Ken,
The opinion surprises me because it seems to state, as a matter of law, that an instructor in rock climbing owes no duty of care to pupils.
A motion for summary judgment asks the court to resolve the case without trial because there is no dispute of material fact. Normally, as here, the party opposing summary judgment introduces evidence that, if accepted, would justify the relief they request.
The parties argued in this case about whether opinions such as ec's constitute material facts. The Regents argued that this was not a material fact because even if ec concluded that the instructors erred, the plaintiff would still lose because he assumed the risk of falling. In other words, it wasn't that there was no evidence that the instructors erred, it was rather that the evidence was immaterial.
Again, I agree that we assume the risk of falling when we climb, but I doubt that we think we assume the risk of incompetence of instructors in a formal class setting, defective equipment, etc.
I don't expect a brand new rope used properly to fail to hold me. If I fell to my death because that rope broke in a short, unobstructed fall, properly belayed, my estate should have a cause of action against the manufacturer under established California defective product law. Under this court's opinion, however, there would be no cause of action because I assumed the risk of falling and, apparently, all consequences that ensue. That misconstrues the risk we assume.
I'm normally no fan of the plaintiffs' bar in California, but this case seems to misunderstand the legal nature of the climbing risk.
John
|
|
dougs510
Social climber
down south
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 02:04am PT
|
Diddo what locker said.
When I first started reading this thread, it seemed almost surreal. Sort of a disassociation. My first impulse was to respond in an arbitrary fashion. But thought better of it.
My sincere condolences to you and your family. Very sorry for your loss. I hope your brother was living the life that he loved at the end, and his loss, though tragic, was met in such a way that many of us would like to find the end of the path. Climbing is a magical, spiritual experience that I (Personally) would like to end the walk. Anything else would be less than worthy for me.
Again, I'm sorry for your loss, and may your brother find peace.
|
|
Maysho
climber
Soda Springs, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:10am PT
|
Okay, I want to modify my stance. I agree with JLeazarian that there is a duty to care in climbing instruction, and catastrophic anchor failure should be a classic breach of that duty. My point is that the strong upholding of assumption of risk in general is a great thing for our society.
There could be so many grey areas where someone gets injured or killed, and negligence could be a debatable matter of opinion. We need to understand that climbing, skiing, skateboarding, etc. are risk sports with terrible consequences when thing go wrong, and things do go wrong sometimes.
We are facing the huge risk of a generation of out of shape, unhealthy kids, some of this is due to the paranoia of the outdoors that many current parents have, and of course the inundation with electronic distraction.
I and my staff put a lot of attention, training and diligence into risk managing climbing instruction. I am glad that we are allowed to teach over 1000 kids a year in California, with good waivers, insurance and public acceptance that careful involvement in risk sports is a good thing.
Peter
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:25am PT
|
ec said
Obviously, the powers that be had not much experience in ruling on this type of incident. It was like they read a different depo to get that remark.
The lawyers in the crowd correct me if I am wrong, but depositions are not part of the record of evidence, and neither the trial judge, the jury, nor the appellate judges read ANY depositions......only the evidence that is given on the witness stand.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:42am PT
|
There's definitely a gray line between mistake and negligence. Some very famous and experienced climbers have died because of mistakes. Some of those mistakes might rise to the level of gross negligence, like significantly mis-representing level of experience, and then making a mistake while guiding.
But everyone makes mistakes, and climbing is much more risky than say golf so sometimes those mistakes will have rather more unfortunate consequences than they would on the greens.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:47am PT
|
John, this does seem to be a somewhat unusual case.
As is the usual, the defendant asked for Summary Judgement, and the Trial Judge ruled against. The trial ensued.
At Appeal, the Panel ruled that, in fact, in the trial, there was no evidence presented that argued that there was any issue of fact...the basis of Summary Judgement, and so found that the Trial Judge had erred, and granted relief.
Of course, we don't have the transcript in front of us, but it sounds like the Panel was not very impressed with the evidence presented by the plaintiff.
I can't say that I am impressed that if one thinks about the top rope climbing programs around the country, particularly at the college level, that this program was markedly different than most.
I doubt that most programs are run by AMGA-certified guides.
I doubt that most climbers would testify that they had been taught by such guides, even in such programs.
I doubt that most anchors placed for top ropes would be checked by more than two instructors, if that.
I WILL say that I've always thought that placement of pro, as opposed to clipping bolts, for anchor systems, is a much more advanced skill, and more prone to failure.
So, when one starts to try to establish a "standard", particularly in a sport in which independence is prized, it is difficult.
Everything starts to seem very black and white after the fact, but in reality, they are often quite grey.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 12:16pm PT
|
I agree with JLeazarian that there is a duty to care in climbing instruction, and catastrophic anchor failure should be a classic breach of that duty.
I don't think I agree with this. Rock climbing is just too dangerous of an environment. For starters, I don't think you would say this if the anchor was two modern looking bolts (say in Sierra granite) that pulled out.
For a gear anchor, there are certainly anchors that an experienced climber should recognize as dangerous. But it is not always possible to know the rock quality of natural anchors to 100% certainty.
And for a sport where even very experienced climbers can make fatal mistakes (not tied in correctly, harness not doubled back, rapping off end of rope), I would like to see any standard for liability to be high.
Now maybe rock climbing guides/release forms should give a better idea how dangerous climbing is, but I'm not sure how you do that when people are so accustommed to signing meaningless forms (say a liability release so your kid can take a 15 minute nature walk...).
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 12:42pm PT
|
Very good points, too.
Litigants from the dark side stand ready to take advantage of anything less than 100.0% or anything gray. Sometimes from the fatness of their lazyboy recliner, too.
Watch yourselves, it really is a jungle out there clothed in accoutrements.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 12:55pm PT
|
This is another sad example of getting what we pay for.
When well trained skilled professionals have to compete with wannabe heroes who are willing to guide for a pittance the result is a degradation in professional standards.
Anchoring belays in separate cracks was de riguer when I started climbing because we used pitons and slings not bolts.
I'm not going to go on some hypocritical "bolts are bad" rant, but many climbers today are sorely lacking in ancillary anchoring skills.
On one hand it is good that the waiver held up, but somebody definitely screwed the pooch here, and it was a person professing to be a guide.
If you want better guides throw out the wannabes and pay guides like somebody who holds your life in his hands like, say, a doctor.
Yeah. Like thats gonna happen.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
|
Ken, there was no trial. A denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable order. The only way to get immediate review is to seek a writ of mandamus -- i.e. an order of the appellate court to require the trial court to grant the summary judgment motion. That's what happened here.
On summary judgment, the evidence consists of declarations that usually include discovery responses (deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, responses to requests for admissions, etc) and matters of which the court may take judicial notice. Almost always, the result of a request for a writ is a postcard from the appellate court, whose substantive content is "Denied."
Hope that helps to explain the procedural stance of this case.
Having taught climbing for free in the early 1970's with the UC Hiking Club, I sympathize with the desire to limit liability in what is an inherently dangerous activity. I still remember an article in Summit in the late 1960's that seemed to imply a feast of possible torts in the climbing world, and my appalled reaction to it. Still, in the modern world of California tort law, this case surprises me.
Then again, the law has its limits. In the words of Dickens's Mr. Bumble, "If the law presumes that, the law is a ass, a idiot."
John
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 04:34pm PT
|
Whether you like it or not, there are standards. For rock climbing guides, I guess the standards are very minimal as long as the waiver is sound.
The facts presented appeared to contain an argument about having protection in two cracks. I guess that's now a standard too.
Now that this very minimal standard has been set, the question remains, what have the UC's done to prevent this type of fatality in the future?
Have they improved guide training, experience requirements for guides? Only allow the lead guide to set the protection?
I hope there was some sort of overhaul because this shouldn't happen, ever.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 05:38pm PT
|
When well trained skilled professionals have to compete with wannabe heroes who are willing to guide for a pittance the result is a degradation in professional standards.
I certainly don't disagree with this and anyone who is going to take clients out should be well trained and well experienced.
But I don't think you are ever going to get to this point unless the government starts requiring licenses. And that is a road I would rather not start down. After licenses for guides would come licenses for all climbing. A ranger at the base of the Nose saying you can't lead Pine Line until you take your refresher coarse.
And even licenses (or requiring guides to be certified) wouldn't prevent all mistakes. If someone dies topropping at the Leap, then clearly someone F_up. But outdoor climbing is never going to be completely safe (certified/expert climbers can make fatal mistakes) and we shouldn't ever pretend it will be.
I don't think most climbers in the US realize how lucky we are that the government (outside of the occasional fixed anchor/access issue) takes a blind eye to climbing. I think we should guard this jealously.
|
|
emu
climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 05:57pm PT
|
When well trained skilled professionals have to compete with wannabe heroes who are willing to guide for a pittance the result is a degradation in professional standards.
Something that isn't clear to me from the thread here is whether the "instructors" were UC students volunteering their time to teach fellow students rock climbing skills, or whether they were paid guides instructing for money.
One conclusion you might make from this incident is that anyone teaching climbing must have an AMGA certification or something similar. As someone who learnt trad climbing through a (different) college climbing club I really appreciated other more experienced students volunteering their time to teach newer climbers anchoring and leading skills. Requiring such certifications might well make it too time consuming and expensive for college students to teach other students, and that thought saddens me.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 06:29pm PT
|
During the 'mock' lead exercise, the 'leader' not only was tied to a top rope, but was trailing a 'lead' rope that protection was clipped to. To my knowledge, there was a belayer tending this rope. This was not mentioned in the thread above, but was in the depos.
In similar instruction, I would do this as well to train belaying the leader, but more importantly to train the 'leader' to manage his belayer and the rope. Anyone can slam pro in a crack, but this element made it more realistic. When the 'leader' was finished, I merely had both belayers lower, that way there was no confusion amongst newbies about who was on or off. Then I had someone 'follow' and clean with both ropes; one for the TR and one that was 'in the way' with pro to clean.
During the fateful course at the Leap, the instructors ditched the 'lead' rope and belay. They stated that it was in the way and would possibly get tangled up...
I had made a point back then to the attorney, that had the 'lead' line and belay both been on, one of those pieces on the 'lead' rope might have held. 'Might' possibly wasn't a strong enough term for them I suppose. However, I know it would have made a big difference.
ec
Edit: no pros, just volunteers
|
|
Ruthel
Gym climber
wisconsin
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:00pm PT
|
I really know nothing of the legalities and even less about climbing. My 16yo son has started gym climbing and I told him to look up Norm's name and see if there was some sort of club he belonged to. That's how we stumbled upon this thread. And no, I certainly was not offended by anything said. I was actually enlightened a little. Norm was one of eight siblings and his humor and larger than life personality will always be missed. It's wonderful to see my son so much like the Uncle he never met, with the twinkle of adventure in his eyes. And a little frightening too. Much love to all who in any little way tried to help him in his last moments.
Ruth
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:48pm PT
|
Ruth- I'm really sorry about your brother.
We talk about the legalities here, and the responsibilities of the guides. It's a cold conversation, but I hope an important one. I don't forget that there are real people involved who suffered, both the living and those that passed on. I'm sure that others here don't forget that either (except the user known as high fructose corn syrup. That individual tries to play politics with everything.) Sorry about that guy, there's one on every forum.
I've been around a lot of this stuff over the years. I even used to guide for the UC's.
While it apparently did not meet the technically legal standard in this case, the UC is ultimately responsible. The guides made an unacceptable mistake. More experience would have helped, but still might not have made a difference.
Everybody loses here. I can only imagine the pain of those that caused this situation. The grief of the family of the deceased can only be intimated. I'm a father. My brain short circuits before I can imagine losing my boy.
None the less. The guides here had to have lived through a nightmare, of lesser intensity, but a nightmare all the same. They know what happened shouldn't of happened. They must feel responsible. Do they feel better that there was a waiver? Probably not.
The issue to me- is that the UC's hire these people, and tell them they are guides if they take a weekend course. More experienced "guides" judge them and deem them solid or not. I did this for four years during college. It's a bunch of 5.9, 5.10 trad leaders with two to three years experience taking clients up 5.6 and 5.7.
When I used to guide Bear's Reach, I was comfortable enough on the climb to solo it. Does that mean I should guide paying customers up it? Soloing and placing good gear are different ballgames.
Real good anchors require that the climber has seen bad anchors, seen anchors fail, been scared, and decided to do better. Young people recruited by the UC may not have the experience. In fact, they may be young and extra dumb, because they are young and confident.
I ramble on, but my question remains- what did the UC's do to make sure that this doesn't happen again?
What improvements were made? As a former guide for the UC's, I can imagine quite a few that could have been made, but I graduated. I moved on. I bet this is what always happens. The "guides" graduate and move on, leaving a new crop of inexperienced climbers to run the show.
|
|
Kalimon
Trad climber
Ridgway, CO
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2010 - 11:56pm PT
|
Tom,
Have you no sense of restraint? Your legaleeze is of no comfort to a grieving family.
I distinctly remember hollow flakes on the Bear's Reach . . . what an awesome solo route!
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 12:34am PT
|
If I've offended, I apologize.
I meant to explain why we are talking about this in the first place. I also hope to find out, for my own curiosity, and possibly for a search of truth, whether the UC's changed their ways.
I did not mean to kill this thread.
How can we discuss something like this, to make improvements, without being improper?
Also- Kalimon. My understanding is that this accident was not on Bear's reach proper.
I guided for the UC's. In retrospect, they were an accident waiting to happen. When I was doing it? I felt we were just fine. Youth is a funny thing.
|
|
Gilroy
Social climber
Boulderado
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 12:50am PT
|
Ruthel, I cannot tell you how important your contribution to this thread is to me and, undoubtedly, to others who were involved, as well as those reading and posting here. Every death in this community is felt deeply, still more by some than others.
I never had my offspring take off into the lead on a climb but I thought about it, having raised a few. You should be little concerned as long as you strive to ensure they receive good instruction. The standard of instruction is much higher today IMHO than even a decade ago. It's like anything else really, biking, skateboarding. Hell, just breathing continually can be a risk to kids, it seems.
Ruthel, your compassionate and magnanimous attitude about the circumstances of your brother's passing stands as a balm and testament to those of us who have engaged in educating neophytes in the outdoor skills. A mistake can catch any of us, and has befallen many in mountaineering.
One of my life's centering moments is holding Norm that day. How could it be any different?
I leave judgement to others in this case. IMHO, ec completed a thorough investigation of this unfortunate accident's technical climbing points and, from what I remember of that day, I agree with all he has said or written to this point.
Keith
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 01:49am PT
|
John, thanks for the clarification. That didn't make much sense.
-----------------
If you want better guides throw out the wannabes and pay guides like somebody who holds your life in his hands like, say, a doctor.
Heh, Heh.
----------
ec, you said:
During the fateful course at the Leap, the instructors ditched the 'lead' rope and belay. They stated that it was in the way and would possibly get tangled up...
I had made a point back then to the attorney, that had the 'lead' line and belay both been on, one of those pieces on the 'lead' rope might have held. 'Might' possibly wasn't a strong enough term for them I suppose. However, I know it would have made a big difference.
I'm not sure I buy your reasoning, which is basically that a top-rope system is basically an unsafe system, and should categorically not be used alone.....meaning that anyone who climbs a top-rope route should be on two separate rope systems, belayed by two different people. No one believes that. Yes, if they had not disconnected the lead line, it would have saved him, but that doesn't mean that having two lines should be standard practice.....is that what you are advocating?
Their explanation is actually reasonable, and is a reasonable CHOICE. The way that you explain doing it is also a reasonable CHOICE.
I don't think you can reasonably advocate that there is only one way to go about this.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 02:08am PT
|
Ruthel, my condolences for the loss of your brother.
One of the things that goes on in the climbing community is the rather cold examination of any accident, especially any fatality, that happens. We all want to learn from the circumstances, we all want to do better.
I'm a physician, and I am used to discussing horrible circumstances clinically for the purpose of understanding and learning.
Some of the things we talk about just go beyond any understanding. Just wrong place, wrong time. Almost never does gear fail, it is almost always "operator error" of some kind.
I suppose the morbid part of it is the realization, often, that it could have been any one of us.....and we search a case for justification that it could not have been. Probably a lot of times we just fool ourselves.
Our sport actually published a book each year: "Accidents in North American Mountaineering", which summarizes many (but not all) of the accidents of the previous year, with expert analysis of what went wrong, and how to avoid it. Sometimes there is no answer: why did the 100-ton boulder decide to fall, when it had been sitting there for a century?
Often, the only solace we take is knowing that one of our comrades perished doing something that they loved.
We kick ideas around, but we don't really know. I am sure that we check anchors more carefully the next time we go out.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 05:01am PT
|
I'm not sure I buy your reasoning, which is basically that a top-rope system is basically an unsafe system, and should categorically not be used alone....Ken M
'Not my resoning at all. If you read it correctly, all belays remained active in this particular activity for a training/learning purpose (edit: mainly the lead belay). Do you lead? Have you belayed a leader? Much different than belaying a TR. When being lowered, the belays remained on to avoid confusing signals to inexperienced belayers. 'Nothing to do about the security of the TR system.
ec
Edit: not that a TR system is unsafe, newbie belayers can be. Ken M, this was in the scope of a 'learn to lead' course. This would be the only scenario where anyone would do this...I suppose you did not catch this. You are a Dr?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 08:20pm PT
|
Not my resoning at all. If you read it correctly, all belays remained active in this particular activity for a training/learning purpose (edit: mainly the lead belay). Do you lead? Have you belayed a leader? Much different than belaying a TR. When being lowered, the belays remained on to avoid confusing signals to inexperienced belayers. 'Nothing to do about the security of the TR system.
ec
Edit: not that a TR system is unsafe, newbie belayers can be. Ken M, this was in the scope of a 'learn to lead' course. This would be the only scenario where anyone would do this...I suppose you did not catch this. You are a Dr?
teach all of those. I don't disagree with your reasoning about the issues of confusing signals, and inexperienced belayers. However, that was not the issue involved with this accident.
The accident had EVERYTHING to do with the security of the TR system,so it appears that you are advocating that the obvious answer is the use of the lead system that was in used in this class......and on the face of it, that is true. But that supposes that there is a problem with the TR system. In reality, as we both know, the TR system is actually the backup for the much more suspect lead system, that is why it is there and we use such things.
If one thought the TR system was potentially faulty, of course, one would not be teaching leading on a separate system that might require that TR as a life-saving backup.
The whole logic of it falls apart, when the backup anchor failed.
Yes, am a doc.
|
|
ec
climber
ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 09:31pm PT
|
If one thought the TR system was potentially faulty, of course, one would not be teaching leading on a separate system that might require that TR as a life-saving backup.
No sh*t.
I dunno how the logic falls apart. There was pro in the crack that might have saved him, even though that was not the intent of the second line. This seemed a profound observation on my part having facilitated this type of activity differently.
Sorry to have to revisit this at this point...
'won't change anything now.
ec
|
|
Ratagonia
Social climber
Mt Carmel, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 10:31pm PT
|
"Here is the key section to me:
McGowan and Veilleux each had significant experience setting anchors and they believed their system was "bombproof." Other than the anchor failure, no evidence was presented to suggest that this was a [**924] faulty conclusion, or that Veilleux and McGowan's selection of the site fell below the sport's norms for anchor installation.
Bold was added by me. NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. Now, after the fact, people can say whatever they want. All that matters is what was said on the stand. As far as the Appellate Court is concerned, NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED."
Maybe its just me, but it seems crazy that the ANCHOR FAILING is not considered evidence of the anchor not being bombproof.
T
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 10:37pm PT
|
ec, wouldn't expect you to.
I'm fascinated in our sport, how the tinyest detail, in the most trivial way, can take on the most profound consequences under the right (wrong) circumstances.
I'll see people set up anchor systems that I can't fathom how a person could possibly tolerate (like on one point of pro), but understand that they've "gotten away" with it for years, sometimes. That sort of reinforcement tells them it is ok, but is only a trap for when something goes wrong. I'm sure we've all seen this, and been shaking our heads.
In most scenarios, there are a whole series of decisions that are made. At some point, a bad one is made. Usually, bad decisions are stacked. Seems so, here. I guess it makes the point that this stuff needs to be done thinking every step, and not on autopilot.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 10:45pm PT
|
Ratagonia, I believe that is exactly what it says, when it says "OTHER THAN anchor failure, no evidence was presented......."
That says to me that it was evidence that is was not----"the situation speaks for itself".
|
|
aspendougy
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2010 - 10:58pm PT
|
Signing an "assumption of risk" form does not negate awarding damages based upon negligence. After all, if they had used a frayed rope and it broke, there would clearly be grounds for awarding damages based upon negligence.
The big question is, were they negligent in the placement of the anchors? The answer seems to be yes, and based upon that, it seems that the court ruling was faulty. However, it is not nearly so blatant as using bad equipment, and I can see a judge who is not a climber rule the other way.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2010 - 01:59pm PT
|
At some point, a bad one is made. Usually, bad decisions are stacked. Seems so, here. I guess it makes the point that this stuff needs to be done thinking every step, and not on autopilot.
I'm all for focusing on safety. I make an effort to watch my partners tie in and look to see if they thread the grigri the correct direction, etc. However, when you do a simple, repetitive act, its not realistic human behavior to expect it to occupy 100% of your attention despite how much we might want it to. Take driving on the interstate. A show of hands of who, each time they change lanes, thinks to themselves, "ok, I got to focus 100% on making sure there is not a car in the lane I'm goint to change into"? As I thought, I don't see any hands. No, the key is to make it a 100% habbit to always look, even without thinking, before changing lanes.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2010 - 02:09pm PT
|
Signing an "assumption of risk" form does not negate awarding damages based upon negligence.
Well I think there is a difference between simple and gross negligence. It has been a while since I took torts, but I think the law also makes a similar distinguish.
I don't think a guide is, or should be, guilty if there was just the tiniest bit of negligence that caused a fatality. For instance, if you had a rope set up at Indian Creek where the anchor looked like many of the other anchors that have been around a while and everyone climbs on without much of a second thought; and the anchor failed. You could argue that the guide should only set up top ropes on anchors that the guide himself had recently put in and new 100% were ok (at least for the next couple of years). Isn't anything else at least minimal negligence?
This is a dangerous sport and even a fairly minor amount of negligence can lead to fatalities. I think we should be upfront about that and those that don't want to accept responsibility for that should not climb, whether they are guided or not.
At some point I would establish liability. Letting a client climb without a helmet for instance. Climbing on a rope that you know has a core shot. But these are much more clear cut than establishing the quality of a natural anchor.
I agree that is sounds like the incident at the Leap involved negligence but from what I can tell, it is not to the level where I would like to see a successful lawsuit.
cheers
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
El Dorado Hills, CA
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2010 - 02:14pm PT
|
Liability in risk activity is tough.
In climbing, there are mistakes happening all the time (even though the people on the Taco do not make any ;) )
Usually these mistakes do not harm/kill us.... but they can
|
|
| Messages 1 - 101 of total 101 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!