Forums: Climbing Disciplines: Indoor Gyms:
UIAA Indoor Walls Paper
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Indoor Gyms

Premier Sponsor:

 


guangzhou


Aug 22, 2012, 8:46 PM
Post #1 of 4 (1613 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

UIAA Indoor Walls Paper
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

http://www.theuiaa.org/...-legal-experts-group


USnavy


Aug 22, 2012, 9:10 PM
Post #2 of 4 (1608 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2658

Re: [guangzhou] UIAA Indoor Walls Paper [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

UIAA wrote:
It is nevertheless recognized that the contract cannot be allowed to protect the supplier from recklessly exposing the participant to risk or from the supplier’s gross negligence. It only protects against ordinary negligence
This is new to me. I was under the understanding that gym wavers to not provide the gym any protection against any form of negligence. If a gym is negligent, whether gross or ordinary, they should be held accountable and pay damages. The fact that climbing is dangerous should not serve as shield for which gym owners can hide under to enable themselves to be careless in maintenance and safety. If an auto belay system fails because the gym did not maintain it appropriately, the climber should be able to sue the gym. Gym wavers should only shield the gym against acts beyond their control, such as injury sustained from the climber's mistake, or injury caused by private party belayer negligence. Injury resulting from the failure of gym-owned equipment or the negligence of gym staff should not be shielded from a waver. I mean fuck, if the waver is a stop-all, then gyms dont have any reason to care about safety, they pretty much have a free ticket to do whatever the hell they want. That is unacceptable.


guangzhou


Aug 23, 2012, 4:24 AM
Post #3 of 4 (1578 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [USnavy] UIAA Indoor Walls Paper [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.


USnavy


Aug 24, 2012, 10:44 PM
Post #4 of 4 (1491 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 5, 2007
Posts: 2658

Re: [guangzhou] UIAA Indoor Walls Paper [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

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)


Forums : Climbing Disciplines : Indoor Gyms

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$1.58 (10% off)
$13.46 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook