There is plenty of opinions and concerns in that other thread, but no precedence set as to where the liability will fall.

To my knowledge, there is no precedence on this matter. I would like to read of any if there is though.

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.

Don't be lazy people. A wall superfluously littered with draws just looks trashy.

While that guy is an ass and clearly in the wrong, it would be nice if the locals policed themselves. That route is not steep enough to make cleaning the draws at the end of the day a difficult task, so the only really viable reason for leaving them is out the window.

Don't be lazy people. A wall superfluously littered with draws just looks trashy.

you been going after me for some times now and I am not sure if you what happens to those who point their keyboard on me.

Have you seen Angry lately ?

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." 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.

Jay

P.S., Do I have to do all the work around here? I'm not even a lawyer.

I'm not even a lawyer.

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.

Jay, look up circumstances and take that in context with what i bolded in my statement above.


That's obvious.
Many variables in assumption of risk too, it's not an all encompassing exemption.


So........If a guide took out a new client and hung some draws that were wore part way through up a route, then said they're fine go for it. Then the third one up breaks and the clients sustains injuries, the guide cannot be found liable because of assumption of risk.

Things need to be taken in context with all the circumstances.

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

This is what changes things, something I said prior to your first post in this.


We were talking about other cases that may be out there and I pointed out that many other circumstances have to be weighed with each individual case, and taken in context with those circumstances.

Then you graced us with your high and mighty shortsightedness.

I have no idea what the above babble is supposed to mean. U.S. law is clear: if you participate in a risky sport, negligence is not a cause of action. Therefore, if you climb a route with fixed draws that were put up by another climber, and the draw fails, you have no cause of action for negligence against the climber who put the draw up.

This is why, in the US, you can't, for instance, successfully sue your belayer–partner for negligently dropping you; why you can't successfully sue the equipper of a route for injuries due to a badly placed bolt; etc.

Jay

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." 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.

Context and circumstances Jay. There is no magic exemptions as you are implying.



I showed you a situation that falls within the parameters you describe above and it was obvious to you that there are exceptions. Your statement of an all encompassing assumption of risk is wrong.

I'd think with your years on this site that you would stray clear of blanket statements.

There is already a precedence for gear on anchors, no one blames the bolter if an anchor chain or bolt fails,

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

Another blanket statement.


Maybe, maybe not.

Recreational Use statutes in all 50 states are pretty clear in limiting liability

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

As far as the liability is concerned, it's an assumed risk. Good god, by some of the logic I see here (or lack of it), if I climb a wall with a pitch that has fixed heads on it, one blows, and I ledge, I get to sue the guy who placed it.

......
The law is far from "clear" in all cases. It depends.

oooo mista majid ... are ya threatening little ole me?

going after you? .... im simply pointing out that you stated

"Does two second time to clip in slows them down or uses a lot of their energy ?

bunch of pus*ies with skinny harness and skinny 6.9mm rope who can't even carry six QDs on their harnesses."

when you admit that you havent even led 5.8 ... who are you to call people pussies .... if you cant sport climb that ... lol


perhaps you have a special deal with the rockclimbing.com gods where ya can just insult everyone freely and get people banned ... wake me up when i get angry

I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right.

I am not always right

I don't know of anyone who wants to kick your ass midget. You're like a socially inept first grader, annoying but harmless.

Please don't play Jay on me.

Jay quoted me and said I was wrong about different circumstances in each case because his assumption of risk law supersedes all that. Then I give him an example of different circumstances and he said, well yeah, that's different circumstances. I swear it's like arguing with a child.


Now this.
You said prior to this that "Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner".
I say "maybe, maybe not"..
Now you say it's, "clear in limiting liability". These two things are different. I'll just repeat, "It depends".

Your making an assumption much like Jay did in that the law is clear. Lawyers and judges construe the law to fit their interpretations depending on the circumstances, then jurors make their own decision based on what is sometimes nothing more than their gut feelings.

The law is far from "clear" in all cases. It depends.

I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right.

I am not always right