|
|
|
|
ryanpfleger
Jun 19, 2004, 2:06 AM
Post #26 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2003
Posts: 243
|
In reply to: F all that.... the parents should get NOTHING...... It's the parents responsibility not the coaches or the schools. And for those that say highschool kids should not be leading??? I agree about negligence, but negligence on the parents behalf. If they are going to be trusting their kids life to a "coach", it should be there responsibility to find out that guys credentials.
Oh really? So the school employees are not responsible for your children while at school? You may not realize it but you are legally bound to send your kids to school whether public private or homeschool. Last I checked PE was a compulsory class, rockclimbing may have been an optional component, or it may not. Its likely even if a waiver was required it would not hold up. In many instances parents cannot release an entity from liability for their children, and even if they could if this was indeed compulsory a release of liability would not hold up.
I believe the statement (one that I agree with) was that highschool kids are not going to be lead climbing as part of gym class.
So if you're a parent do you personally interview each of your childrens teachers before each semester? Background checks, education, that sort of thing? Do you even have the opportunity?
It seems to me that the media brings to light the most frivolous of lawsuits, and we as audiences extrapolate those instances into the whole of lawsuits everywhere. What we may or may not see, is the instances of people getting screwed by other people, big business, or whoever, and getting some sort of reasonable compensation as well as punitive damages that make the person/institution think twice about putting their bottom line before other peoples wellbeing.
That said, I am not a lawyer, and I am not necessarily against some sorts of tort reform. I think that some sort of legislation requiring punitive damages to go to appropriate charities instead of the plaintiff might be very appropriate. However doing away with class action lawsuits, and the sort of legislation that is being pushed by many conservative at the moment is a slap in the face to anyone and everyone other than big business.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
teamkonarider
Jun 19, 2004, 2:18 AM
Post #27 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2004
Posts: 66
|
I am currnetly a junior at a high school in Conneticut and my P.E. class incorperates climbing and ropes in the course. The school has a fifty foot wall with five routes on it. When climbing with my class I was just bearly satisfied with the safety measurements that they took. the harnesses of other students were secured by a butterfly knot with a locker and the locker had to be "scratched up" instead of having the gate facing the wall. I took a look at the harnesses and all of them said that they should be tied with a retraced 8. I did climb eventually but i did not feel that i could take a fall and be held (even on an autralian belay) and when i was getting ready to be lowered i was dropped about halfway down the wall. So i do not think that climbing should be incorperated in a regular P.E. class. But the school does offer "adventure" P.E. and i do think that it does belong in that type of enviorment where the techer is an experinced climber and has taken an outdoor educator course similar to NOLS outdoor educator semster.
Climbing has been a positive experince for me and i would like it to be one for other people too but instead of going outdoors or at a school with a wall go to a gym where things can be better controled by not only the teacher but the gym owners too.
Just my two cents
Sean
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 19, 2004, 4:25 AM
Post #28 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: it would be interesting to know whether or not the parents had to sign a waiver to let their kid participate. even if they could prove the teacher was negligent, there may be no liability. perhaps that's why the city has also been named in the suit.
FYI, if negligence is found here, it does not matter if a waiver was signed or not. It is not possible to contract away negligence.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jun 19, 2004, 5:32 AM
Post #29 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
Schools and teachers must exercise a parental duty to care for the students. The teacher screwed up because s/he should have noticed the danger on this particular climb. As a teacher i am responsible for the safety of my students--whether i am in or outside a classroom. as long as they are in my care, i am responsible. if they get hurt because i did not exercise due care and attention, as a parent would be expected to, i am responsible.
here are questions i ask myself:
am i exercising due care and attention?
can an accident happen?
are all the accidents that could happen preventable by my own actions?
the last question is the hardest because kids are unpredictable. it's my job to predict their behaviour. this includes training, briefing, monitoring, corrective actions and constant observation.
this case seems sadly cut (no pun intended) and dry.
it really is a shame.
|
|
|
|
|
ex_mea_sententia
Jun 19, 2004, 5:39 AM
Post #30 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2004
Posts: 27
|
In reply to: FYI, if negligence is found here, it does not matter if a waiver was signed or not. It is not possible to contract away negligence. Curt
you can in canada. canadian law presumes that with a signed contract, the signatory has read and agrees to the contract's terms. however, the waiver may be defeated if the plaintiff can prove that the exclusion of liability terms are too onerous and that the defendant did not do enough to point out or highlight the onerous terms in the contract to the plaintiff before he/she signed the contract. most exclusion of liablity cases occur against ski resorts and don't even get to the negligence part of the suit because the plaintiff can't defeat the contractual exclusionary terms.
that's canadian jurisprudence anyways. i wasn't aware the law was different in the u.s.
also, i've taken a few climbing courses and read the standard waiver drafted by the acmg. it includes excluding liability if the guide is negligent. (but again, acmg is canadian). anyone ever read an amga waiver?
|
|
|
|
|
cking0156
Jun 19, 2004, 1:18 PM
Post #31 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2002
Posts: 17
|
The article in the Glenwood Springs Post Indepentant was written last year (July 4 2003). Does anyone know what has happened to this case?
|
|
|
|
|
granitegod
Jun 19, 2004, 10:45 PM
Post #32 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 340
|
[quote="saskclimber"]In reply to: The student could've been running out the side of the route, skipped a bolt, had way too much slack, or any number of things that could've well made it his own fault.
I'm not a lawyer.....but while the student could be considered stupid, I'd say the school/city/instructor are likely LIABLE, due to existing unsafe conditions (the shed) and poor supervision. The city could get off the hook if they can show they didn't know the rocks above the shed were used for climbing, or the rocks are not on city property.
Sounds like the principal should have kept his mouth shut too....well, he can always get a job teaching in Utah.
|
|
|
|
|
pneumoped
Jun 22, 2004, 9:34 PM
Post #33 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 2, 2004
Posts: 32
|
After reading many of your comments and questions about my original post, I became curious and I set out to find more facts. Unfortunately, there may not be much more out there about this accident. I have added some further UNCONFIRMED information that is probably useless to this discussion.
First, I wanted to learn more about the accident itself so I emailed the author of the article that I posted a link to. He and I emailed back and forth a couple of times and all he could remember was that of the two climbing areas near the town of No Name (just East of Glenwood Springs, CO) the accident happened at No Name Canyon as opposed to Poux. I have been climbing at Poux but not at No Name Canyon so I can not say what the climbing and conditions are like at that location. He also told me that he has heard that the family settled the lawsuit out of court, but that was unconfirmed information.
Further, I tried to track down a copy of the 2002 Accidents in North American Mountaineering at a local library. I ended up talking over the phone to a student intern at the University of Denver library and she looked through that volume and could not find the accident. I have a friend who has a copy of the journal and I will search it myself this weekend.
So, whether the student was on top rope or leading is still not known. Where the shed was in relation to the climb is not certain either.
I will be heading past the area in October and if I remember I’ll look for the shed (if it is still there) and take a photo of it.
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Jul 19, 2004, 10:14 PM
Post #34 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
In reply to: So, whether the student was on top rope or leading is still not known. Where the shed was in relation to the climb is not certain either.
A little deductive reasoning can answer this pretty simply for all of us.
In reply to: Christopher Boas was climbing on an overhanging portion of rock
It appears that the shed was at the base of the climb and when the climber fell he swung out into the roof of the tin shed. Alright so what do we know about falling when you are on an overhanging portion of rock. a) Lead: You fall straight down, swing towards the rock, generally brace against the rock and don't swing too far out b) Top rope: You swing straight backwards (and down abit). Odds are he was low on the route (more swinging) probably only a bit more than 1 story up (if that) the belay was not %100 so he fell and swung a bit more than he should have. And he ran into the side of the roof with his leg and... chop suey.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jul 19, 2004, 10:18 PM
Post #35 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Climbers should assume all the risks for theoir behavior, and not sue if they get hurt by "misjudging" a situation.
Wonder why there are access issues ??? What land manager wants to assume the risk for climbers who sue ???
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jul 19, 2004, 10:51 PM
Post #36 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Climbers should assume all the risks for theoir behavior, and not sue if they get hurt by "misjudging" a situation. Wonder why there are access issues ??? What land manager wants to assume the risk for climbers who sue ???
I generally agree, but you can't very well call this kid who got hurt a "climber" can you? In this case, other people were responsible for seeing to it that nobody got hurt.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
legless
Jul 21, 2004, 9:24 PM
Post #37 of 37
(5272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 160
|
Curt...I am not sure what case law you are drawing from...but I can say with 100 percent certainty that exculpatory cluases (i.e. waivers) can absolutely shield a party from liability for negligence (in the US).
A waiver cant protect someone for liability for intentional torts (such as a punch in the nose) and becomes a little more sketchy when there is gross negligence (i.e. so reckless that it borders on being "intentional")
The only time a negligence clause doesnt hold is when upholding the clause would be "contrary to public policy"---which basically means that the service provided is so fundamental that the court believes that waivers are simply inappropriate in that circumstance (for instance, a waiver that barred suits for injuries sustained while riding a public bus).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
