[Nemo]

A perspective on this stuff from a lawyer outside the UK:
http://gripped.com/2011/03/sections/articles/bolting-is-not-a-crime/

JCM – What was the outcome in the Australian case?  Presumably it was the same case mentioned in this article?  Has there ever in the whole history of sport climbing round the world been a successful case?  Lets hope sanity prevails otherwise it’s a completely ridiculous can of worms…  I can just picture you representing someone suing Redhead because he didn’t place the bolts more evenly on Poetry Pink...

In short, the legal stuff makes me want to vomit (although I guess it's worth being aware of).  But I can’t help thinking that JCM’s argument is based on the bizarre premise that bolted climbing is “supposed to be safe”.  Which strikes me as utter nonsense….   Climbing is dangerous.  That is ALL climbing is dangerous.  If you want to be safe, take up table tennis.  There’s certainly no clear cut line between trad climbing and sport.  And there are plenty of bad bolts around – I’ve clipped bolts I wouldn’t trust my body weight on, just the same as pegs.   I’ve always just seen bolts in the same light as other in situ gear - ie: sometimes they're reliable, sometimes they aren't.  How much you trust them depends on the route in question and the venue as well as how they appear.  And there are a million reasons for bad bolts from surrounding rock failure, to bad glue, to rust, to a trad climber’s half arsed attempt to chop them…  (Shark, the version of the blue tacked bolt wind up I vaguely remember being told was on Strawberries, but it is probably an urban myth…)

On the other hand, rightly or wrongly, I always thought with old expansion bolts that it was pretty obvious when the bolts were dodgy – rusty, loose, spinning hangers etc etc…  The idea of brand new looking glue ins just pulling straight out is pretty scary stuff.  And as such perhaps it is worth everyone being aware of some basic guidelines to try to prevent problems (although clearly these are going to be different in different rock types / sea cliffs etc).  Random idea, dunno how it will go down – is it worth systematically putting say a black tag on the first bolt of all newly bolted / rebolted routes for the first month or so or until they’ve seen some ascents and the bolts have been given some use?  Then at least people would be aware of the situation and treat with appropriate caution?

Finally, I certainly wouldn’t want to see this…  But assuming the worst in the long run, perhaps people will need to think a bit about insurance?  I guess one option is to insure the bolters as suggested in that article.  But surely…  (And I don’t know the first thing about this stuff, so this might be complete nonsense…)  If say all climbers had BMC insurance, and if the BMC made it clear to the insurers that noone has any responsibility for fixed gear…  Then wouldn’t it be exactly the same as if a serac lands on your head in mountaineering? – there would be noone to sue.  And considering that statistically mountaineering must be way, way more dangerous than any form of rock climbing, then presumably the insurance wouldn’t be too expensive?????  Let’s hope we don’t ever end up needing to go there though… 

[jcm]

Nemo, there was no law suit in the Australian case, in large part probably because the perpetrators were Croatian. Here's the UKC thread with various links to reports of the facts

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=340148

Someone on there was saying that in Australia there's a statutory provision to the effect that participants in risk sports can't sue for negligence. I don't know whether that's true or not. I don't know whether a manslaughter case was ever seriously contemplated either (as your link suggests) but the facts in that case were pretty gross. I wouldn't have ruled out some form of criminal prosecution.

The fellow in your link puts it a bit stronger than me, even, but he's basically saying the same as me.

As to insurance, I must say I'd assumed equippers were covered by the BMC insurance, assuming they're members. Is that not right, DanM? If they're not then the BMC would do well to address this IMHO.

I'm not quite sure what you have in mind your last paragraph, but anyway there's no prospect of evading this issue by insurance, participation statements (whatever they are) or anything else. The simple fact is that people who place bolts and do it badly are going to endanger other people's lives; if it's ever tested then I find it inconceivable that the law won't impose liability on the basis of romantic notions about climbers being responsible for their own safety, I'm afraid, especially given that we all know the truth is that sports climbers simply assume new bolts are going to work (as you acknowledge yourself; if you're routinely checking them then why is it "scary" if they're failing?).

The argument about people willingly accepting risks is analogous to the football cases; by playing football you submit to things that in other contexts would be assault, and take the risk of being tackled and ending up crippled. You don't take the risk of being fouled (or at least recklessly fouled - there's a slightly grey line, I think) and ending up crippled. So my 'argument' (whatever my 'argument' is; I think I'm just trying to say what the law is) doesn't depend on any notion that sport climbing is supposed to be safe - obviously the participant accepts various hazards that aren't present in table tennis. It doesn't follow that he accepts the risk that whoever put the bolts in didn;t take proper care.

[Rocksteady]

JCM demonstrating his strong opposition to bolt protected climbing:

He does look quite disgusted by it in that photo...

 :geek:I think that's a route called 'Rambling Moses Weetabix and the Secona Park Seven' which gets 6b or 6b+ at Dancing Ledge at Swanage. Actually quite nice moves, if I recall rightly.

[jcm]

Does anyone know the state of play with this kind of issue in the US? You'd think the potential liability risk to bolters would be even greater than in the UK, given their disproportionate population of the more rapacious type of lawyer. However I am not aware of any discussion on a US web forum similar to this one - though I have not looked hard.

Tangential to that, how about US-style ground-up bolting (one of the pillars of what yanks regard as "trad" climbing)? Almost by definition ground-up bolts are likely to be less well-placed and less likely to have been checked later, relative to normally-equipped sport routes. How would the legal analysis jcm suggests apply to those?

Toby, Nemo's link above was to a discussion by a US lawyer.

My (UK law) guess would be that ground-up bolts are the same as any other form of permanent protection; that there's a duty of care to take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances. What those steps might be would obviously be very much open for debate and might vary widely according to circumstances.

The Croatians, after all, placed their Australian bolts ground-up. They also used a type of bolt they had been specifically warned would not work in the local rock, pulled at least one bolt out by hand themselves during the ascent, and then wrote to the local guidebook author describing their route without mentioning these facts and decrsibing the rack needed for the route as '12 quickdraws'.

 :geek:I think that's a route called 'Rambling Moses Weetabix and the Secona Park Seven' which gets 6b or 6b+ at Dancing Ledge at Swanage. Actually quite nice moves, if I recall rightly.

Actually, it's Double or Quits, the 7a+ next door.

On another note, though, I know the Secona Park Seven were a band who played Dorset pubs, but does anyone know who the magnificently-monikered Rambling Moses Weetabix was (or is?)?

[lmarenzi]

Not really into the law much in a climbing context but it seems to me that a claim against any bolter will be fraught with extreme difficulty.

There is no contract between bolter and climber. When you buy a new car, you have a contract, and if the wheel comes off you have a very straightforward claim which I doubt would be contested once in a thousand. Same at a climbing wall. Duty of care = high.

With a bolter you are left with a potential claim in tort. Duty of care = not so high. The problem here is that there is no malfeasance (wrongdoing, where someone has done something to you, like run you over with their car) but nonfeasance, ie an omission to do something (check bolts, warn that they have not been checked, that they are Croatian and perhaps not suited to Australian sandstone, whatever ...). The law rarely imposes liability in these cases of omission.

Worryingly from a policy perspective there might well be liability for the unwitting landowner though.

Its a bit like digging a hole by a path and someone walks down the path at night and falls in. No real problem with the hole, assuming that you had the right to dig it in the first place, but you should have cordoned it off / put up a barrier. No liability for him who dug the hole - he has not done anything he was not entitled to do. Potential liability for him whose land it has happened on though. A contractor will have agreed to indemnify the landowner in the case of a proper building site, and other legislation will apply, but that is not the case on a climb.

All a bit technical on the civil side, but there you go.

To suggest that placing bad bolts could be potentially criminal would be an absolute first as far as I am aware and is quite fanciful. Barring some unknown criminal climbing legislation. There are a finite number of crimes in the UK and you can find out what they are. Placing bad bolts ain't one of them.

Of course usual disclaimers apply to all of the above.

From a climber's point of view of course I want bolters to do the best possible job for us, as testing can be tricky, but not impossible: apparently sticking a biner in and turning is the best way to check if bolts are (semi) sound.

One bad bolt can invalidate the work of lifetime for someone who puts routes up, so please guys, make really sure they are as good as can be.

Safe climbing ...

[slackline]

No doubt in light of this recent incident and discussion its generated...

BMC Tech Skills : spot a bad bolt

[Offwidth]

Nothing in there about what to do when faced with probably correct but likely irrelevant legal arguments on a bolted route. 

[slackline]

UIAA issue anchor corrosion warning.