Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Indoor Gyms: Re: [guangzhou] UIAA Indoor Walls Paper: Edit Log


Aug 24, 2012, 10:44 PM

Views: 2573

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2667

Re: [guangzhou] UIAA Indoor Walls Paper
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

guangzhou wrote:
First and foremost, it's impossible to provide a 100% safe climbing environment. Without the protection of waivers, no-one would open gyms in the United States. Even with waivers, the risk is very high of getting sued in civil court.

What you quoted was Very much out of context, so let me bring in some more quotes.

In reply to:
In contrast, in Canada and most states in the USA waivers are effective except where there is personal injury or death of a minor or where gross negligence is involved.

In reply to:
In the USA and Canada users are routinely required to sign a waiver (otherwise called a release) by which the user accepts responsibility for his own safety and waives any claim against the operator. These will be effective in avoiding liability save where the accident is caused by the reckless act of the operator.

On the criminal side

In reply to:
Criminal Law
The doctrines of disclaimer and waiver have no application whatsoever to criminal law. Liability for criminal acts can never be excluded.

Settle and didn't go to court, but shows how anyone can sue anyone. I don't think Petzl should have been sued, the others I see no issues with.

In reply to:
A novice was under instruction by a qualified instructor and after top roping a climb was lowered off. However the rope had been attached by the instructor into a gear loop on the claimant’s harness and not the proper attachment point. The claim was brought against Petzl, (as manufacturer of the harness) against the climbing wall operator and the instructor variously alleging that the harness was not appropriate for use on a climbing wall (because the gear loop was an unnecessary distraction) and that safety instructions on the label were inadequate; the instructor was negligent; and the wall operator was vicariously liable. This claim was settled and did not go to trial.
Of course it is not possible to eliminate the risk. I agree wavers should exist to help reduce the risk to the gym owner. However, wavers should never provide protection to the gym for matters of true negligence. The first quote you copied mentions gross negligence, not ordinary negligence - there is a difference. Gross negligence refers to complete utter disregard for safety. In cases of gross negligence, one could almost argue that the injury or death sustained was intentional. However, your quote does not mention ordinary negligence which equally important. The quote I posted specifically says ordinary negligence is shielded. I am not an attorney, but I suspect that most people that sue gyms sue under ordinary negligence law, not gross negligence. I would imagine it would be harder to prove gross negligence because gross negligence is a more severe case of ordinary negligence.

(This post was edited by USnavy on Aug 24, 2012, 10:45 PM)

Edit Log:
Post edited by USnavy () on Aug 24, 2012, 10:45 PM

Search for (options)

Log In:

Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?