[Bubba]

Apologies if this is old news:

Climbing wall liability claim thrown out

[dave]

fell and landed head first on matting when he attempted to leap across a gap from the climbing wall to a bar

he must have really wanted that drink.

[Jim]

Yeah, heard this on the radio the other day.
Its very sad what happened to him but its good to see there is some common sense coming through and maybe put a decline to the claim culture that is spreading over from america

[Sloper]

I don't think this is in any way important legally but it is good publicity, especially to scum bag lawyers (shurley shome misthake) who might advise idiots to claim for self inflicted injuries.

[Norton Sharley]

I particularly liked this quote from the notes below the case - "The most basic tenant of climbing is to keep 3 points on the rock at all times, I don't think "leaping" fits into this and he was unaware of the basics of climbing it was surely his responsability to engage in tuition."

Don't think he posts much on ukb 

[Norton Sharley]

I don't think this is in any way important legally but it is good publicity, especially to scum bag lawyers (shurley shome misthake) who might advise idiots to claim for self inflicted injuries.

Er, Slopes, it's a legal case, therefore sets precedence, therefore is important?

[shark]

Er, Slopes, it's a legal case, therefore sets precedence, therefore is important?



You would think so given that it overturned an original judgement that ruled the climbing wall was 25% at fault.

[saltbeef]

25%? how the fuck do they come up with a figure?!!!
3 times out of 4 people won't act like a tit?
surely its 21.34%?

[Sloper]

With respect to all, as I am aware that there are several lawyers about, my reading of the case is that it would only set a precedent, where it clarified the existing law regarding volenti and its application of the doctrine of contributory negligence.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/646.html&query=poppleton&method=all

Paragraph 21 Makes it clear that the owners of the facility were not in fact negligent and as such the question of volenti and contributory negligence do not arise as material considerations.

As such, I can see no other relevance of the case than its illustration of the limits of the neighbour principle as it applies to the nature and extent of the duty of care in the particular field.

The facts may appear important and no doubt Mr Poppleton finds their Lordship's finding of critical importance, but legally it is run of the mill but with a degree of publicity.

[shark]

Paragraph 1 also makes it clear that  "Bouldering in this context is low level simulated rock climbing without ropes"

[Sloper]

If I was unkind I would suggest that their attempt to define bouldering is closer to reality than your attempt to define what amounts to an important case that establishes precedent.

[shark]

If I were to be equally unkind I might suggest that such imperious pomposity of that sort gives your  profession a certain rep which might be improved if you climbed off your pedestal and explained in non Latin terms (volenti !) for a mainly non-legally trained readership why this case is not important. 

[fatdoc]

God... this forum is good.

no, really no sarcastic shite... the multi professional input to various aspects of our lives is enlightening...Sloper - I thank you.
 

Simon, respect the qualified opinion. There is no pedestal here.

[Sloper]

Volenti non fit injuria is generally understood as meaning that a person participating in a risky venture with consent cannot sue if injured.

I remember a case where someone persuaded a pissed pilot to take them 'up' and show them some acrobatics.  They suffered from a lack of altitude and the deceased's estate failed to recover damages.

So in daily mail speak, if you and I go bouldering and you fall and my spotting lets you down then you cannot sue me for negligence.  If I was an instructor and you were a 12 year old the situation might be different.

In short, the wall owners / operator's owed a duty of care to those that might be at risk of injury due to the owner/managers failure to meet the necessary standards.  The gross stupidity of the claimant and the actions of the owners/managers were considered to allow the proper conclusion that there was no failure to meet the necessary standards and not withstanding the injury no liability.

The problem with cases such as this is that they produce much heat but little light.

As for your comments, yes I was being rather pompus but if you'd had the day I've had you too would be muttering sic transit you fucking morons.

[n_man]

Does this have a 'legal precedent' for banned crags where the owners are fearful of litigation?

[Sloper]

At £200 per hour I'll get back to you.

[Kingy]

At £200 per hour I'll get back to you.

Is that all?!! Bloody bargain if you ask me. Cheque's in the post.

[marty]

>> At £200 per hour I'll get back to you.

You're cheap - I'm assuming you're are giving us a discount.

[shark]

Thanks Slopes.Have you got a link to the first judgement as I am curious how the 25% fault of the climbing wall was ludicrouusly arrived at.

>Simon, respect the qualified opinion. There is no pedestal here.

Hello Doctor - In the words of Mandy Rice - well you would say that wouldnt you..

[Carnage]

Volenti non fit injuria is generally understood as meaning that a person participating in a risky venture with consent cannot sue if injured.

Jesus, talk about teaching granny to suck eggs- I thought everyone knew that.

[andy_e]

a person participating in a risky venture with consent

What would be without consent then? Boulder-raping?

[Norton Sharley]

Gents, please see link

http://www.thelawungobbledegooked.com

[SA Chris]

Quid pro quo Mr Powers, quid pro quo.

[Sloper]

Nemo dat quod non habet.

But let's up the stakes, and consider the proper basis for considering whether or not a trust is charitable, with regard to the existence or not of a quasi contractual nexus or similar between the propositor and the propositum; before then moving to consider the external nature of the public benefit and whether the mere fact that the activity falls within one of the four heads of charity is sufficient or whether equality of access is a condition precedent to the trust falling within the meaning of charitable.

[SA Chris]

Yes.

Ever heard of sentences? Say that in one breath and you will pass out.