Please show me a legal case where "it depends" applies. Show me where a landowner who charges a fee for use of their land was sued after an accident and was sued.

I'm not following you here, Maybe your trying to say, show me a landlord that doesn't charge for using their land that has been sued.

If your trying to say that a straight forward case of someone of legal age acknowledges he will waive any liability to said landowner, you might have a pretty good case, in that set of circumstances. I said might because it depends on what actually happened. What if the landowner came out and cut your rope while you were jugging it. Who's liable then? Far fetched, yep, within the realm of possibilities for something like this to show up in court? People have done crazier things. That's just one of a thousands of different possibilities that make up different circumstances. Not everything in law is cut and dried, for the most part, they're not.

You brought up negligence and I responded with this:

"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."

Now when I give an incident with a different set of circumstances, you and Jay cry foul.

I'm not following you here, Maybe your trying to say, show me a landlord that doesn't charge for using their land that has been sued.

If your trying to say that a straight forward case of someone of legal age acknowledges he will waive any liability to said landowner, you might have a pretty good case, in that set of circumstances. I said might because it depends on what actually happened. What if the landowner came out and cut your rope while you were jugging it. Who's liable then? Far fetched, yep, within the realm of possibilities for something like this to show up in court? People have done crazier things. That's just one of a thousands of different possibilities that make up different circumstances. Not everything in law is cut and dried, for the most part, they're not.

You brought up negligence and I responded with this:

"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."

Now when I give an incident with a different set of circumstances, you and Jay cry foul.

I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all.

I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*

So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

Oh, for heaven's sakes, it's 5.14. You're not even remotely qualified to have an opinion, much less express one. Let's see if you can even put the draws up, and even if you can, how much energy you have left to then productively work the route on the same day.

Jay

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.

Have you climbed at smith?

Heh

And then there's that...

I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls.

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.

I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls. The main areas around smith are hardly a wilderness environment, and cater almost exclusively to climbers. its funny where people draw the line for tackyness in climbing.

And it should be an issues with the climbers. I personally think all the chalked up holds look like shit too but I do use chalk. And so does everyone else, which is what makes it a problem and everyone would have to stop using it to solve that problem. Which would be great but is not realistic.

The draws are an area where a single climber can make a huge difference though and is a much more realistic goal.

But yes, I am a hypocrite and not proud of it.

I wasn't criticizing the "trashy" comment. I was criticizing your ability to judge how difficult it is to hang draws on a 5.14. Although after reading your post, you didn't comment on the difficulty of hanging the draws, but on cleaning them. But then you missed the point of leaving of the draws up, which is the difficulty of hanging them again, given that by definition of "project," climbing the route is currently too hard for you.

Jay

I think walls look better with chalk and draws on them, so I'm not a hypocrite.

Jay

So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

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.

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.

Similarly if a United Airlines 747 dropped an engine onto him he could sue United Airlines, yet neither scenario has anything to do with the subject.

Jay

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.

I've never climbed at Smith but the pictures make it look like the cliff top access is not ideal so maybe reaching the anchors via other means is not really an option. If it is though, someone is just being lazy...

Well I don't noes about teh local climbers... but ewe can OG BET that there wood be a jiant party hear on teh knob, with people poynting and laughing with red and green arrows. But sadly, that will never happen, cuz ewe don't climb.

Still refuse to take things in their full context. Now lets show what the very next line of that quote is.