[JamieG]

I was reading about sideways daze getting broken in font and came across this. Apparently a spotter got sued by a climber for an injury. My french is non-existant, and this sounds ridiculous. Can anyone shed some light or have they heard of this before?

http://tl2bplus.blogspot.fr/2013/05/archives-quand-un-pareur-est-attaquee.html

[JamieG]

Actually looking a bit more, i found this too. http://tl2bleau.blogspot.fr/2001/01/savez-vous-faire-une-bonne-parade.html

Sounds like perhaps the climber injured the spotter and that is where the problem arose. Sorry my French is terrible and I'm not sure google translate always makes sense.

Worry if you can get sued for failing to spot properly or vice-versa by accidentally hurting a spotter. A friend of my had his nose broken in font when trying to spot another friends and took an elbow to the face.

[SA Chris]

mate of mine got a blow to his nose while spotting his girlfirend, not broken, but tears were shed. By both parties.

[Scouse D]

When climbing at Pex Hill back in the day I fell from the top of Breakaway (high) and my feet landed on the thighs of my spotter (as he was crouching). I broke both his legs.
Don't worry though, I was fine.

[Nibile]

The climber fell and made the spotter fall aswell, resulting an injury. Pushed by his insurance, the spotter sued the climber.
There is a general norm, in Italy it's the article 2043 of the Civil Code, in France the 1382 (because they always come before us... ), that states that "Whoever causes some damage to another person, must indemnify the damaged person". The only way for the first person, not to pay for the damage, is to demonstrate the lack of causality between his behaviour and the damage; or the so called "fortuitous case", the unpredicted and unpredictable. Out from these two cases, the damager must pay.
The reason of the resposibility is found in a culpable behaviour (negligence, imprudence, inexperience).
In this case, the first degree and the appellation judgements, found no culpable behaviour from the climber.
The Court of Cassation, on the other hand, found that: three testimonies (in favour of the climber) were introduced in the judgement violating some procedural norms; the fact that the climber DID cause the fall of the spotter, represents PER SE, a culpable behaviour. For these reasons the Court cancelled the appellation sentence and sent back the parts in front of that judge.
I love this shit.

[Oldmanmatt]

When climbing at Pex Hill back in the day I fell from the top of Breakaway (high) and my feet landed on the thighs of my spotter (as he was crouching). I broke both his legs.
Don't worry though, I was fine.

This might be cheaper than a mat and great in that it walks itself in too.
But it's a much smaller area to land on for highballs and the whining would be irritating...

[shurt]

i shagged someones knee falling onto them off the top of jokers arete at brimham. no broken bones by either party though

[JamieG]

Cheers Nibile, that kind of clears it up . . . sort of . . .

[SA Chris]

i shagged someones knee falling onto them

Did you twist in midair and land cock first?

[dave]

When climbing at Pex Hill back in the day I fell from the top of Breakaway (high) and my feet landed on the thighs of my spotter (as he was crouching). I broke both his legs.
Don't worry though, I was fine.

I know he should have been spotting better but breaking his legs seems a bit harsh, could have just keyed his car instead.

[shurt]

i shagged someones knee falling onto them

Did you twist in midair and land cock first?

That's it. I forgot to mention his knee had twins. They were very needy children.

(I've got my coat and have already left sorry)

[mrjonathanr]

The climber fell and made the spotter fall aswell, resulting an injury. Pushed by his insurance, the spotter sued the climber.
There is a general norm, in Italy it's the article 2043 of the Civil Code, in France the 1382 (because they always come before us... ), that states that "Whoever causes some damage to another person, must indemnify the damaged person". The only way for the first person, not to pay for the damage, is to demonstrate the lack of causality between his behaviour and the damage; or the so called "fortuitous case", the unpredicted and unpredictable. Out from these two cases, the damager must pay.
The reason of the resposibility is found in a culpable behaviour (negligence, imprudence, inexperience).
In this case, the first degree and the appellation judgements, found no culpable behaviour from the climber.
The Court of Cassation, on the other hand, found that: three testimonies (in favour of the climber) were introduced in the judgement violating some procedural norms; the fact that the climber DID cause the fall of the spotter, represents PER SE, a culpable behaviour. For these reasons the Court cancelled the appellation sentence and sent back the parts in front of that judge.
I love this shit.

That's pretty spot on. The act of causing a fall is in itself the culpable behaviour.
How many languages do you speak/ read fluently Nibile?

[Johnny Brown]

Surely offering to spot is taking on some level of responsibility for your actions and an awareness of possible consequences? It's not like he fell off Crescent arete and took out some Gran tottering up the path.

[Bonjoy]

 
In a climbers' court the spotter would be the culpable party. A spotter should be able to judge where a climber will fall and act accordingly. Being in the way of a fall is a threat to the safety of the climber who is in a worse position to judge how their fall might imperil the spotter. Landing on a spotter could also damage the climber.

[mrjonathanr]

The Cour de Cassation (I've discovered) is the French equivalent to the Supreme court, previously for us The Lords.

le fait de provoquer la chute d’un autre grimpeur constitue une faute,

it's the act of causing someone to fall which is the tort. I'm not saying it's right in your eyes, but that it's  their legal judgment.

[jwi]

I once fell backwards of a boulder and (stupidly) threw my arm behind me. My elbow connected with the spotters forehead and cracked his frontal lobe.

[Oldmanmatt]

The Cour de Cassation (I've discovered) is the French equivalent to the Supreme court, previously for us The Lords.

le fait de provoquer la chute d’un autre grimpeur constitue une faute,

it's the act of causing someone to fall which is the tort. I'm not saying it's right in your eyes, but that it's  their legal judgment.

An odd judgement. It seems to imply that the climber had a choice in falling and a large measure of control once parted from the rock...
Clearly there must be further detail which explains this apparent ignorance of Physics.

[Falling Down]

I fell off catching the break on WSS (on the flash no less - it might have been the first flash) and landed on Gaz Parry's or Stu Littlefair's dog a long time ago.

[SA Chris]

Were you "lighter of body" then Ben? Or did the dog die.

So taking the piss can be seen as "the act of causing the climber to fall and you can get sued for it?

[Danny]

I once gave a mate (JohnM) a particularly incompetent spot as he fell off Tierdrop at Ramshaw. He fell legs akimbo onto my knee from the top runnel - essentially taking the full force of the fall with his testicles. Still very sorry about that, John. 

[Muenchener]

"Whoever causes some damage to another person, must indemnify the damaged person". The only way for the first person, not to pay for the damage, is to demonstrate the lack of causality between his behaviour and the damage; or the so called "fortuitous case", the unpredicted and unpredictable.

So Roman Law - and it's descendants - doesn't have to concept of volenti non fit injuria?

To the climbing non-lawyer it's entirely obvious that, by offering to spot, I not only take upon myself some responsisbility for the climber's safety, but also voluntarily and knowingly put myself in harm's way. Could a climbing-informed and highly capable Italian lawyer, hypothetically supposing such a beast existed, not convince a court of this?

[Dexter]

surely by climbing in the first place you are aware of the risk and danger involved and as such have to accept that as a possibility.
I guess the only way to properly test the spotters affect would be to have someone fall off in exactly the same way without a spotter.
Surely though a spotter will generally lessen the damage done unless they decide to punch you whilst falling instead of spotting?

[SA Chris]

I think the threat of being punched in mid air may be a good motivator to press on!

[slackline]

surely by climbing in the first place you are aware of the risk and danger involved and as such have to accept that as a possibility.
I guess the only way to properly test the spotters affect would be to have someone fall off in exactly the same way without a spotter.
Surely though a spotter will generally lessen the damage done unless they decide to punch you whilst falling instead of spotting?

Sounds like you've got the wrong end of the stick as its the spotter who was is suing the climber who fell on them (see Nibile's detailed post).

I agree with JB and Bonjoy in that by offering/choosing to spot you accept responsibility for what could happen to yourself by doing so.

[Nibile]

"Whoever causes some damage to another person, must indemnify the damaged person". The only way for the first person, not to pay for the damage, is to demonstrate the lack of causality between his behaviour and the damage; or the so called "fortuitous case", the unpredicted and unpredictable.

So Roman Law - and it's descendants - doesn't have to concept of volenti non fit injuria?

To the climbing non-lawyer it's entirely obvious that, by offering to spot, I not only take upon myself some responsisbility for the climber's safety, but also voluntarily and knowingly put myself in harm's way. Could a climbing-informed and highly capable Italian lawyer, hypothetically supposing such a beast existed, not convince a court of this?

 
We do have the concept that you recall "Volenti non fit iniuria", but it deals with criminal (penal) law, in fact it is expressed in article 50 of the Penal Code. It's a cause of justification.
This case, on the other hand, revolvs around the civil effects of the behaviour, that is not the prosecution of a crime, but simply the economic reimboursement for the damage caused.

Not knowing exactly the circumstances, it's difficult: from the penal point of view the climber could be accused of culpable injury, but maybe the spotter could have had a culpable behaviour as well, that could have aggravated the situation. Who positioned the pads, how, etc. Was the fall normal or awkward? Was the spotter skilled or not? How was the ground? And so on. Things that could go on forever.
From the civil point of view, the rule that states that a damage must be reimboursed - despite being very rigid and at times illogical - has the precise aim of protecting the damaged person, anyhow.
If there's a damage, there must be a reimboursement.
Then, the other person can demonstrate his lack of culpable behaviour, the fortuitous case, the lack of causality, etc. So the norm is asymmetrical because that's the only way to fully protect the damaged person: it's a choice from the legislator. This could also partially clarify Oldmanmatt's doubts.
It's also important to remember who promotes the action in the beginning. This sets the rules of who must do/prove what. The climber, for instance, could have promoted a specular action (a couterclaim) asking the spotter to reimbourse the damaged caused by a bad/unattentive spot, etc.

Of course I can only speak for the Italian law.
I can try and imagine the Frence Court of Cassation's reasoning:
two people go climbing; they know the rules and are skilled; they know how to react in case of a fall; if something goes wrong, that is the demonstration that someone made something wrong, otherwise their skills would have avoided the damage.
 

[lagerstarfish]

slightly similsr - I remember someone trying to sue the Grands Montets lift company because they slipped on snow whilst leaving the building and there was no sign to warn of the danger. I think the result was along the lines of - it is reasonable to expect skiers to know that snow is slippy and that there will be snow outside.

[blacky]

This thread has opened my eyes  I'm never spotting anyone ever again

[andyd]

 

This thread has opened my eyes  I'm never spotting anyone ever again

I got a handful of lady boob once (under Brad Pitt-I think you were there Blacky). Very embarrassing.
It's a funny one. I often feel obliged to spot people I don't know, but I'm really looking to stop them banging their head and checking that no one runs underneath.
A good relationship with your spotter is important. My regular bouldering partner knows that I want to be caught and guided onto the pads, whereas he requests that I spot him if he falls awkwardly, but otherwise stay clear and let physics do its thing.

[psychomansam]

I once asked a belayer, who lacked significant trad experience, to stand directly below me as I lowered a few meters off an extremely shit nut.
I was aware that the nut would likely fail if they stood at all away from the wall (as this, for you non-trad-climbers, would increase the angle of the pull on the nut - i.e. pull it outwards more rather than just downwards - in this case quite likely causing it to pull out).
I was also aware that it might fail anyway, thus causing me to shag my belayer. She was aware and quite pissed off by the request, though she complied.
She didn't normally mind me shagging her, but this wouldn't have been a good shagging.
As it was, the nut held in place until I reached the bottom and easily flicked it out with the rope, and so her good looks survived another day. But if the nut had failed, I feel I would have been at least partly culpable.
What do you think Fiend?

[tomtom]

So you managed to avoid a bad shag by getting your nut stuck... but it was alright because you got off by flicking your rope? eh?