How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread.

Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land. Before you and Jay go off and say this has nothing to do with inherent risk of climbing and such, remember, it was your assertion that a landowner can't be held liable since he didn't charge the person for use of his land. I merely presented you a situation which contradicts your assertion without changing your statement. Many people, especially lawyers, wouldn't consider that an inherent risk of using his property and that it should of been anticipated and accepted as a reason for the landowner not be held liable. Inherent risks and assumption of risk have limitations.

Jay and you are both intentionally ignoring that I had originally stated that not all liability claims are the same and need to be put into context with the circumstances. Different circumstances to both of your prior scenarios can change the outcome without changing either of your stated assertions.
But now neither of you will except anything that doesn't fit your ever narrowing tolerances. It's a given if we restrain the circumstances that you and Jay want to impose then that someone probably won't be held liable. All I've said throughout is that each case is different and not all cases will withstand either of your initial asserted defenses of assuming risks or inherent risk.


Jay, I thought you had already sheltered yourself from my post. Please continue with that since I won't be responding to your belittling ad hominem attacks which are an ever increasingly hallmark to your debates. Your personal attacks don't warrant a response.



Edited because it's late and I'm tired.

The problem is you took my original comment in this thread, which yes was a general statement, but was stated in the context of this thread, as applying to all cases however far fetched. I thought it would have been pretty obvious we were talking about landowner liability in the direct context related to my quotes, ie normal climbing situations where someone gets hurt, related directly to normal climbing dangers ie bolts breaking, holds, loose rock, decking etc. Not intentionally cutting ropes, suicidal tractors or whatever intentionally obtuse examples you want to imagine up.

taking all the draws as they must all be obviously unsafe .....claiming they are yours ... bashing "pussies" for not being able to clean a 5.14 every time when you cant even do a 5.8

how righteous thoult art oh holy majid

this thread was all about thief till I mentioned unsafe and then the whole train derailed in to another dimension. Now, that is called Wabitt Power

it's really funny to compare and contrast the development of this thread and its sister thread on mountainproject.

this thread was all about thief till I mentioned unsafe and then the whole train derailed in to another dimension. Now, that is called Wabitt Power

The problem is you took my original comment in this thread, which yes was a general statement, but was stated in the context of this thread, as applying to all cases however far fetched. I thought it would have been pretty obvious we were talking about landowner liability in the direct context related to my quotes, ie normal climbing situations where someone gets hurt, related directly to normal climbing dangers ie bolts breaking, holds, loose rock, decking etc. Not intentionally cutting ropes, suicidal tractors or whatever intentionally obtuse examples you want to imagine up.

The conversation evolved and expanded and you were a major contributor to this. You brought in bolts and anchors, you brought in landowners.

By the time I stated that "it depends" the conversation was already covering anchors, bolts and draws, and soon to be landlords.

Any liability case is going to be judged by the circumstances. I haven't once excluded a cut and dried case from the assumption of risks clause, if that is what the circumstances are, then it will fall under that. I've maintained throughout that each liability case is different and needs to be examined to include all the circumstances. Then let the case fall were it may. I've only giving examples that fall outside the risk assumption clause to show you and Jay that not everything falls under a blanket statement.

Also, unlike Jay, I hold no ill feelings toward you from this discussion. Everyone has their own perspective and opinion.

Please read through this redlude97. I really think you need to see what and when it was said. It's corresponds to our post in chronological order. I've paraphrased to shorten it up.

The thread started with a guy taking draws.
Discussion then danced around whether or not the draws should be left there. Then on to who could be liable.

You then said there was a presedence for such liability regarding chains and bolts. You added it would probably be the same for quickdraws.

I asked for a legal reference.

You pointed me to another thread.

I pointed out that the other thread was opinion, but no presedence in regard of liability. I also acknowledged that there probably isn't by offering to read any someone could point me to one. I then made this statement.
"I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument. "
This statement does not in any way say who is right or wrong, it's says it depends on circumstances.


You replied,
"Precedence wasn't the right word. When I said that what I meant was that there had been many bolt failures in the past. There are manly bolts at many crags throughout the us and no one has been sued yet. I think this mostly has to do with the fact that almost everyone associates climbing with inherent danger and that any fixed protection is use at ur own risk ",
I do agree with that.

Jay joins and says,
"Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them."


I took his blanket of someone being negligent is excused under the iron clad "assumption of risk" clause and shot a hole in it.

Jay cried foul but later acknowledged that it was within his parameters.

I then reminded him that all my original statement implied was, it depends on the circumstances.

Jay didn't like "it depends".

I said blanket statements aren't good.

You then said my example is irrelevant since we were talking quickdraws, not anchors. Then you said,
"Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner ".

I then quoted you as being the one that brought anchors into this conversation a long ways back.

Then I pointed out your landowner blanket statement.

You then bring up limiting liability.

I point your assumption of everything being cut and dried.

You then ask for cases. Earlier neither you or me didn't think there were any, Jay tries this trap later too. You reassert that landowners aren't liable if they don't charge, the opposite of your 1st part of that post.

I try to get it across to you, and knowing Jay's reading, that all I'm pointing out through this entire drift that no case is perfectly clear. Yes sometimes a case may fall under the assumption of risk clause and sometimes not, it depends on circumstances.
I give another example, far fetched but within the liability between a landowner and a climber.


Jay accuses me of strawman.

I showed him how it wasn't.

You then ask for a case that prior to this we have both acknowledged probably isn't there.

Jay admits without saying so he hadn't thought of different circumstances that fit within the parameters.

You took a large leap to construe something that wasn't there.

Jay acknowledges my example as fair.

I say your falling behind in what you've said. I also give you an example you don't like that again falls within your parameters.
I try one last desperate time to explain that cases are different depending on the circumstances and that assumption of risk doesn't excuse all cases. I point out that it's a given if the right circumstances are meet, assumption laws will apply. It all depends, you two can't grasp that.
I also don't believe I'll address any more of Jay's lowball attacks.

Jay makes a rabid post.

Jay then makes a funny post to divert attention from real discussion with a strawman that relies on a third party.

I unfortunately get drawn back in to point out his silly tricks.

Over and out.

.

The conversation evolved and expanded and you were a major contributor to this. You brought in bolts and anchors, you brought in landowners.

By the time I stated that "it depends" the conversation was already covering anchors, bolts and draws, and soon to be landlords.

Any liability case is going to be judged by the circumstances. I haven't once excluded a cut and dried case from the assumption of risks clause, if that is what the circumstances are, then it will fall under that. I've maintained throughout that each liability case is different and needs to be examined to include all the circumstances. Then let the case fall were it may. I've only giving examples that fall outside the risk assumption clause to show you and Jay that not everything falls under a blanket statement.

Also, unlike Jay, I hold no ill feelings toward you from this discussion. Everyone has their own perspective and opinion.

Please read through this redlude97. I really think you need to see what and when it was said. It's corresponds to our post in chronological order. I've paraphrased to shorten it up.

The thread started with a guy taking draws.
Discussion then danced around whether or not the draws should be left there. Then on to who could be liable.

You then said there was a presedence for such liability regarding chains and bolts. You added it would probably be the same for quickdraws.

I asked for a legal reference.

You pointed me to another thread.

I pointed out that the other thread was opinion, but no presedence in regard of liability. I also acknowledged that there probably isn't by offering to read any someone could point me to one. I then made this statement.
"I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument. "
This statement does not in any way say who is right or wrong, it's says it depends on circumstances.


You replied,
"Precedence wasn't the right word. When I said that what I meant was that there had been many bolt failures in the past. There are manly bolts at many crags throughout the us and no one has been sued yet. I think this mostly has to do with the fact that almost everyone associates climbing with inherent danger and that any fixed protection is use at ur own risk ",
I do agree with that.

Jay joins and says,
"Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them."


I took his blanket of someone being negligent is excused under the iron clad "assumption of risk" clause and shot a hole in it.

Jay cried foul but later acknowledged that it was within his parameters.

I then reminded him that all my original statement implied was, it depends on the circumstances.

Jay didn't like "it depends".

I said blanket statements aren't good.

You then said my example is irrelevant since we were talking quickdraws, not anchors. Then you said,
"Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner ".

I then quoted you as being the one that brought anchors into this conversation a long ways back.

Then I pointed out your landowner blanket statement.

You then bring up limiting liability.

I point your assumption of everything being cut and dried.

You then ask for cases. Earlier neither you or me didn't think there were any, Jay tries this trap later too. You reassert that landowners aren't liable if they don't charge, the opposite of your 1st part of that post.

I try to get it across to you, and knowing Jay's reading, that all I'm pointing out through this entire drift that no case is perfectly clear. Yes sometimes a case may fall under the assumption of risk clause and sometimes not, it depends on circumstances.
I give another example, far fetched but within the liability between a landowner and a climber.


Jay accuses me of strawman.

I showed him how it wasn't.

You then ask for a case that prior to this we have both acknowledged probably isn't there.

Jay admits without saying so he hadn't thought of different circumstances that fit within the parameters.

You took a large leap to construe something that wasn't there.

Jay acknowledges my example as fair.

I say your falling behind in what you've said. I also give you an example you don't like that again falls within your parameters.
I try one last desperate time to explain that cases are different depending on the circumstances and that assumption of risk doesn't excuse all cases. I point out that it's a given if the right circumstances are meet, assumption laws will apply. It all depends, you two can't grasp that.
I also don't believe I'll address any more of Jay's lowball attacks.

Jay makes a rabid post.

Jay then makes a funny post to divert attention from real discussion with a strawman that relies on a third party.

I unfortunately get drawn back in to point out his silly tricks.

Over and out.

Umm, you guys. We wanted to hash out the little shit who stole draws and got caught. Not the other , and no one is reading the other bullshit. Kindly take you superior intellect and attitudes somewhere else. Kind of a community service to the rest of us.

Please.

We really don't care about the other.

That's more than obvious.

There is a place you gentleman can go, it's called the campground, and is a great place for off topic discussion.

Burly Bob

We really don't care what you think.

Jay

That's more than obvious.

There is a place you gentleman can go, it's called the campground, and is a great place for off topic discussion.

Burly Bob

No, you don’t care what he thinks; stop trying to speak for the entire community.

Why don't moose and you have some manors and continue to argue with each other via PM.

Well, Jay doesn't climb any more since he injured himself at the WNSG. So, arguing hypotheticals that are only peripherally linked to climbing is really all he can do.

No, you don’t care what he thinks; stop trying to speak for the entire community.

Why don't moose and you have some manors and continue to argue with each other via PM.

Here is my response to the topic of discussion written on a forum whose participants have no problem with staying on topic.

I also am of the opinion that this thief knew exactly what he was doing.