UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: GCW on March 16, 2012, 05:39:33 pm
-
Not seen this mentioned on here, but interesting story in the Telegraph. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9146616/The-5ft-leap-at-Craggy-Island-that-may-end-in-payout.html)
From the limited info on there it appears to be the lack of briefing that has been the liability. I've never had a briefing when joining walls (other than a cursory mention in passing type one), it's just been a case of signing the disclaimer.
Is this the way things are going?
-
Its in Da News thread.
-
I must be going blind. Too many carrots......
EDIT: Deserves its own thread anyway :-[
-
I'd be damn surprised If those BMC posters aren't all over the place...
-
Anyone got a link to the full ruling
-
Can't find a full judgement yet, the abbreviated one I have seen is subscription only. The basic ruling seems to have been:
1: The Claimant was not told not to jump down.
2: The Defendant wall had assumed responsibility for her by providing instructors.
3: The Defendant wall knew or should have known that she had climbed up the wall and was therefore at a "disadvantage".
4: If she had been told not to jump in those circumstances the injury could have been avoided.
5: The Claimant was 33% liable by way of contributory negligence for failing to ask for instruction.
Key point I think: she was not a climber, she was a beginner on a course where instructors had been provided.
-
'A clearly emotional Ms Pinchbeck broke down in tears as she left court because she hadn't received the six figure payout she had so obviously envisaged when she decided capitalise on her accident
FFS. A colleague of mine busted her ankle jumping off a 10ft wall at Sandhurst recently on a management course. Should she also sue?
Sorry, I'll rephrase that.
Should she try to claim negligence and loads of cash for a chance incident?
-
Don't most walls have the "read and sign" thing ....
I still see this as a poor judgement.
It is a semantic interpretation of a text.
Most people will (rightly) view it as such.
It is (or should be) the responsibility of the Judge to clarify the spirit of he law where the lettering leaves ambiguity.
And there can be little doubt that the primary question in the mind of the Judge should have been "should a grown woman, with no mental deficiencies, have understood the risks of jumping from a ten foot wall?"
It is idiotic, mealy and pernickety judgements like this, that make a mockery of the legal system.
Because.
Fundamentally.
This judgement says (to the average observer),
"The management of the wall should have done more to protect themselves."
And not that they failed to protect their client.
It says,
"Failure to state the Bloody obvious shall now be considered Negligence."
It also looks, suspiciously, like the "Legal club, drumming up business and inventing a new way to exploit the law to make money, in cahoots with unscrupulous clients and stupid (or corrupt?) Judges."
-
i thought all walls showed new entrants the bmc participation statement which states that climbing is dangerous and that matting does'nt make it safe.can see this sort of claim pushing wall prices up and disadvantaging people wanting to try the sport out but its the claim culture we now seem to have.
-
Truly incredible ...... Surely the clue to what you're meant to do at Craggy Island is in the description 'indoor climbing wall' ....... Now if it was an indoor jumping centre ..........
-
Can't find a full judgement yet, the abbreviated one I have seen is subscription only. The basic ruling seems to have been:
1: The Claimant was not told not to jump down.
Is the onus on the defendant to prove otherwise?.. Because the article says they disputed this and said she HAD been told not to jump.
-
No, its the Claimant's job to prove their case. It's a balance of probability test. The judge will hear evidence form both sides then decide which he thinks is the most likely. When I get a moment I will read the full judgement, which will make the findings on this point clearer. At the moment all I've read is a short summary.
-
Seen some horiffic injuries happen to newbies indoors and often wondered whether any of them would attempt to persue claims like this.
Interesting stuff. Looking forward to more insight from Ru.
-
Looking forward to more insight from Ru.
:agree: will be interesting to hear a more informed opinion
-
The full judgement hasn't been published yet apparently. Not suprising, it's only been 4 days since the judgement was read in court and it will have to be transcribed.
-
Can Craggy Appeal against the decision?
Does this now set a precedent (probably not the correct legal term!) for other climbing wall injuries to make claims?
-
I'm sure they can appeal, but it's a matter of costs?
Walls will no doubt watch this and be adding 312 extra disclaimers etc etc to their registration process.
It's not the first bouldering centre to suffer due to these claims.
-
Perhaps walls might also review the appeal of "customers" who are not really there voluntarily ... like school groups or (in this case) corporate team-building bollocks. You'd guess these are far more likely to be the sorts of people who would make a legal fuss after an accident.
Yes especially as......
Defence lawyers argued that Ms Pinchbeck - as an insurance loss adjuster - should have been well aware of the need to avoid the unnecessary risk of jumping.
Someone whose job it is to sniff out dodgy claims and reduce the amount people get for legitimate ones. You couldn't make it up etc.
Maybe walls should just ban anyone who works in insurance. :wank:
-
I'm sure they can appeal, but it's a matter of costs?
Walls will no doubt watch this and be adding 312 extra disclaimers etc etc to their registration process.
It's not the first bouldering centre to suffer due to these claims.
It won't be craggy: it'll be their insurance company. What will happen is what always happens: a claim, successful or not, pushes up insurance costs for all the climbing walls, they try to put processes in place to reduce the costs after discussion with insurance company, and whatever increase occurs will hit us and our pockets when we climb indoors.
-
I was referring to other venues that suffered and closed as a result.
But yes, your point is a fair one.
-
Cliffs Barn? (I miss you :'( )
-
Yup.
-
This is a real worry as it sets a precedent for other cases. Interestingly though it seems the claimants case is based upon the fact that she wasn't briefed properly on climbing down from the wall and when she was jumping down she wasn't informed of the risks and instructed to down climb instead.
Up to this point walls have been encouraged by the BMC and ABC (Association of British Climbing Walls) to display the BMC participation statement which basically informs that climbing can seriously injure or kill, and the usual signing in procedure; the signing of which infers that you have read and agreed to the walls conditions of use and associated risks involved in said activity. There is normally continuity between walls on this and most use a generic template provided by the BMC. In light of this I'm interested to see how the BMC and ABC responds to this judgement in their advice to walls.
So the question for us walls is will this precedent enable other injured parties to claim when not fully briefed? In which case every outdoor/indoor activity instructor is going to have to be very careful to outline all risks and means of reducing them. I for one will be briefing all the instructors that work here of the case and how important it is not to be flippant when explaining safety practices and hope that this is enough. I do hope Craggy appeal and challenge the ruling as otherwise it could have far reaching affects on the whole of the adventure/ outdoor activities market.
Mr Alderson, what do you folks think over at the works? Will you be changing your signing in proceedure or just ensuring instructors brief clients thoroughly?
With regard to non climbers use of walls unfortunately for most walls these people are their bread and butter, not climbers
-
Having reread my post I am left with the thought that any decent instructor would and should brief and supervise their clients properly anyway.
In which case this ruling isn't necessarily anything to worry about unless the insurance companies over react. If anything it's a kick up the ass to remind instructors to do their job properly and having seen plenty of instances of negligence from off site instructors here at Indy (which we of course react to) part of me wonders how this hasn't happened sooner especially considering the high number of injuries suffered from falls onto indoor bouldering mats.
-
Maybe walls should just ban anyone who works in insurance.
Casinos ban some professional card players - same thing
-
As an aside to this I have noticed at some walls I've been to in the past that instructors do seen to adopt a cavalier attitude to unleashing their charges (of all ages) on the bouldering wall, without any mention of potential risks or warnings of potential dangers of walking underneath people climbing, attempting to do do running somersaults onto the mat etc, so maybe some good will come of this.
-
There is an ABC meeting tomorrow. This case is on the agenda.
Mr Alderson, what do you folks think over at the works? Will you be changing your signing in proceedure or just ensuring instructors brief clients thoroughly?
Thankfully our Chief Instructor Michelle the Mini Cheese is on the ball and our instructors already give full saftey briefings to all those under our instruction. This includes a demo of how to fall off. But this case has of course meant that the instructors have been reminded of our policy.
-
Maybe walls should just ban anyone who works in insurance.
Casinos ban some professional card players - same thing
The Warwick Uni case last year was won by the claimant. The claimant was a teacher, does this mean I have to ban all teachers as well.
I also hear that many in the 'professions' are more inclined to sue than blue collar workers. So you are banned Jas ;)
And don't get me started on Scousers and pavements
-
Pavements falling off bouldering walls is obviously dangerous do scousers cause similar impact damage if they land on you?
-
Whenever the Scousers see a pavement about to fall off a bouldering wall they all rush to make sure it lands on them so they can sue. Which could be seen as a very public spirited action as it saves the bankers getting injured
-
Scousers - the avalanche poodles of the bouldering world :)
-
And of course Scousers sueing you is better than Bankers sueing you as obviously none of them have jobs, well not legal jobs anyway, so they can't claim lost earnings. All they can claim is for new Terry perm if the pavement lands on their heads and a new shell suit when the paramedic cuts the old off ;)
-
I also hear that many in the 'professions' are more inclined to sue than blue collar workers. So you are banned Jas ;)
You'll be hearing from my solicitor!
-
Why didn't she sue her employer, who organized this in the first place as one of those ridiculous little wanky "team building" exercises.
The way you do team building is by doing your job and helping [and management recognizing] your colleagues.
-
I was thinking that. Clearly insufficient RA carried out prior to the "event".
-
I'm sure they can appeal, but it's a matter of costs?
Walls will no doubt watch this and be adding 312 extra disclaimers etc etc to their registration process.
It's not the first bouldering centre to suffer due to these claims.
It won't be craggy: it'll be their insurance company. What will happen is what always happens: a claim, successful or not, pushes up insurance costs for all the climbing walls, they try to put processes in place to reduce the costs after discussion with insurance company, and whatever increase occurs will hit us and our pockets when we climb indoors.
Unless the wall already had suitable procedures agreed with their Insurer that were not followed by staff. In that case mightn't the Insurer repudient the wall's claim as they did not obey policy clauses?
-
That'd be a job for the loss adjuster.
-
That'd be a job for the loss adjuster.
She did it...
-
...
You didn't warn me stamping on my own leg was stupid. SHOW ME THE MONEY! :lets_do_it_wild:
-
Why didn't she sue her employer, who organized this in the first place as one of those ridiculous little wanky "team building" exercises.
:agree:
Because the employer hasn't been negligent. There's nothing wrong with taking your employees to a climbing wall and employing instructors to take care of them.
-
http://sportslawnews.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/jumping-backward-to-poppleton-again-why-pinchbeck-v-craggy-island-ltd-2012-2012-all-er-d-121-mar-may-have-been-wrongly-decided/ (http://sportslawnews.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/jumping-backward-to-poppleton-again-why-pinchbeck-v-craggy-island-ltd-2012-2012-all-er-d-121-mar-may-have-been-wrongly-decided/)
-
Nice diatribe from sloper in the comments section too.
-
Nice diatribe from sloper in the comments section too.
It lives!
(http://cache.io9.com/assets/images/8/2008/09/medium_doghouse_io9.flv.jpg)
-
Typo in second para. :lol: