This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
This is a very interesting Appeal Court judgement with big implications for climbing walls and their insurers. In my view a victory against the compensation culture.
PA copy from today:
A man paralysed from the neck down in a climbing wall accident was left without any damages today in a Court of Appeal ruling which warned that those involved in risky pursuits may never be able to claim.
Gary Poppleton, 32, was found 75% to blame by the High Court last year for the accident in February 2002 which left him needing care for the rest of his life.
But today three judges allowed an appeal by the Peter Ashley Activity Centre in Portsmouth which stripped the victim of his 25% of damages. They also dismissed a cross appeal by the victim that he was entitled to more.
Lord Justice May, giving the ruling, said victims of accidents where the risk is "plainly obvious" may find they have no claim.
"There being inherent and obvious risks in the activity which Mr Poppleton was voluntarily undertaking, the law did not in my view require the appellants to prevent him from undertaking it, nor to train him or supervise him while he did it, or see that others did so.
"If the law required training or supervision in this case, it would equally be required for a multitude of other commonplace leisure activities which nevertheless carry with them a degree of obvious inherent risk - as for instance bathing in the sea.
"It makes no difference to this analysis that the appellants charged Mr Poppleton to use the climbing wall, nor that the rules which they displayed could have been more prominent."
Mr Poppleton and some friends were "bouldering" - low-level free climbing without ropes - when he fell from a height of about 1.45 metres when he attempted to swing or jump across to a grab bar on an adjacent wall.
Before the injury, the trouble-shooter for Bass Brewery would cycle to and from work and lift weights.
Mr Poppleton, of Coriander Drive, Churchdown, near Gloucester, alleged a failure to assess or monitor ability, no proper induction, inadequate surveillance or supervision and failure to actively explain rules and warnings.
Judge Richard Foster, sitting at the High Court in London last year, had ruled there was a breach of duty of care in not informing Mr Poppleton of the latent danger of the shock absorbent matting not providing complete safety from falling.
But he said the climber was "foolhardy" and 75% to blame.
Lord Justice May, overturning the decision, said the risk of falling from the wall was plainly obvious.
He said the High Court judge's finding over the matting could be sustained.
"The risk of probably severe injury from an awkward fall was obvious and did not sustain a duty in the appellants to warn Mr Poppleton of it," he said.
Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee's trustees - a charity which operates the activity centre - denied liability.
PA copy from today:
A man paralysed from the neck down in a climbing wall accident was left without any damages today in a Court of Appeal ruling which warned that those involved in risky pursuits may never be able to claim.
Gary Poppleton, 32, was found 75% to blame by the High Court last year for the accident in February 2002 which left him needing care for the rest of his life.
But today three judges allowed an appeal by the Peter Ashley Activity Centre in Portsmouth which stripped the victim of his 25% of damages. They also dismissed a cross appeal by the victim that he was entitled to more.
Lord Justice May, giving the ruling, said victims of accidents where the risk is "plainly obvious" may find they have no claim.
"There being inherent and obvious risks in the activity which Mr Poppleton was voluntarily undertaking, the law did not in my view require the appellants to prevent him from undertaking it, nor to train him or supervise him while he did it, or see that others did so.
"If the law required training or supervision in this case, it would equally be required for a multitude of other commonplace leisure activities which nevertheless carry with them a degree of obvious inherent risk - as for instance bathing in the sea.
"It makes no difference to this analysis that the appellants charged Mr Poppleton to use the climbing wall, nor that the rules which they displayed could have been more prominent."
Mr Poppleton and some friends were "bouldering" - low-level free climbing without ropes - when he fell from a height of about 1.45 metres when he attempted to swing or jump across to a grab bar on an adjacent wall.
Before the injury, the trouble-shooter for Bass Brewery would cycle to and from work and lift weights.
Mr Poppleton, of Coriander Drive, Churchdown, near Gloucester, alleged a failure to assess or monitor ability, no proper induction, inadequate surveillance or supervision and failure to actively explain rules and warnings.
Judge Richard Foster, sitting at the High Court in London last year, had ruled there was a breach of duty of care in not informing Mr Poppleton of the latent danger of the shock absorbent matting not providing complete safety from falling.
But he said the climber was "foolhardy" and 75% to blame.
Lord Justice May, overturning the decision, said the risk of falling from the wall was plainly obvious.
He said the High Court judge's finding over the matting could be sustained.
"The risk of probably severe injury from an awkward fall was obvious and did not sustain a duty in the appellants to warn Mr Poppleton of it," he said.
Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee's trustees - a charity which operates the activity centre - denied liability.
In reply to John Alcock:
all sympathies with the man in question, of course, but it looks like the law has made the correct choice.
all sympathies with the man in question, of course, but it looks like the law has made the correct choice.
In reply to John Alcock: A very sad event to happen but the climber should have signed a form stating that he was competent to climb without instruction. If using a climbing wall wasn't at your own risk the costs involved in a session would be astronomical, with many climbing walls being inoperable due to higher insurance costs.
I agree that its a victory against compensation culture but then again I havn't been paralysed from the neck down.
I agree that its a victory against compensation culture but then again I havn't been paralysed from the neck down.
In reply to John Alcock:
Falling 1.45metres whilst bouldering and paralysing himself - is that correct ?
If so, the probable risk of severe injury would not have been obvious to me either.
Falling 1.45metres whilst bouldering and paralysing himself - is that correct ?
If so, the probable risk of severe injury would not have been obvious to me either.
In reply to Simon Lee:
Some more detailed info:
A man paralysed after falling from a climbing wall will not receive a penny in compensation following an Appeal Court ruling which some may see as a blow against the "nanny state".
Gary Poppleton, who faces life in a wheelchair, claimed he was the a victim of negligence after falling from the wall at the Fort Purbrook centre, at Corsham, near Portsmouth, on February 2, 2002.
A "novice" at rock climbing, Mr Poppleton was tackling the centre's climbing wall without ropes - an activity known as "bouldering" - when he fell to the ground, breaking his neck.
Mr Poppleton, now 30, of (44) Coriander Drive, Churchdown, Gloucestershire, sued the Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee - the charity which runs the centre - for millions of pounds in compensation.
At the High Court in July last year, Judge Richard Foster ruled that Mr Poppleton had attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall, far beyond his capabilities, and was three-quarters to blame for his own misfortune.
But he said he could claim compensation on the basis that the centre was 25% to blame, meaning he was still entitled to substantial damages, possibly running to seven figures.
The judge made his finding on the basis that the centre should have warned Mr Poppleton that thick safety matting on the floor didn't necessarily make the climbing wall safe.
However today, at London's Court of Appeal, Lord Justice May, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Sir Paul Kennedy, said Mr Poppleton was entirely to blame for the tragedy.
"It is to my mind quite obvious that no amount of matting will avoid absolutely the risk of possibly severe injury from an awkward fall and that the possibility of an awkward fall is an obvious and inherent risk of this kind of climbing," said the judge.
"Mr Poppleton's evidence was that he did not think it was that risky, indicating he knew there was a risk."
Later in his judgement, Lord Justice May added: "There being inherent and obvious risks in the activity which Mr Poppleton was voluntarily undertaking, the law did not require the trustees to prevent him from undertaking it, nor to train him or supervise him while he did it, or see that others did so.
"If the law required training or supervision in this case, it would equally be required for a multitude of other commonplace leisure activities which nevertheless carry with them a degree of obvious inherent risk - as for instance bathing in the sea."
The judge also said that it "made no difference" that Mr Poppleton had been charged for using the climbing wall, and said that it was "plainly obvious" there was some risk of falling from the wall.
And he dismissed a cross appeal brought by Mr Poppleton's legal team, who had argued that a finding of just 25% negligence on the part of the centre was not enough, as the then 25-year-old had been given no instruction or warning about safe use of the facility, and had not been asked about his abilities as a climber.
At an April hearing, the charity's counsel, Mr William Norris QC, argued that to find the trustees liable for Mr Poppleton's injuries "would be over-regulation and what is now referred to daily as the nanny state".
Mr Norris said that it was "fundamentally absurd" to describe the crash mat as a "hidden or latent danger" which had lured Mr Poppleton into a false sense of security.
He added: "Mr Poppleton, as an adult, voluntarily accepted the risk of falling and must, like any adult, be taken to have recognised the risk - however remote that may have been - that he would suffer serious injury, even falling onto a soft surface.
"There was no sound basis upon which the judge was entitled to find that, even had some warning been given, it would have made the slightest difference...There should be no duty to explain the obvious to a consenting adult.
"There is a limit to the information and advice that you need to volunteer to an adult who does not ask for any. He was an adult, entirely free to make his own choices. He also knew perfectly well, when he chose to jump, that there was a risk of falling...He recognised the risk and chose to take it."
Mr Poppleton - who had worked for Bass brewery since he was 19 and was doing well as a "trouble shooter" taking over troublesome kitchens at pubs all over the country - had gone to the activity centre with a group of friends.
The keen cyclist, who worked out regularly with weights, was "bouldering" on the climbing wall when he fell as he attempted a challenging jump towards a grab bar, somersaulting in the air and landing on his head.
Some more detailed info:
A man paralysed after falling from a climbing wall will not receive a penny in compensation following an Appeal Court ruling which some may see as a blow against the "nanny state".
Gary Poppleton, who faces life in a wheelchair, claimed he was the a victim of negligence after falling from the wall at the Fort Purbrook centre, at Corsham, near Portsmouth, on February 2, 2002.
A "novice" at rock climbing, Mr Poppleton was tackling the centre's climbing wall without ropes - an activity known as "bouldering" - when he fell to the ground, breaking his neck.
Mr Poppleton, now 30, of (44) Coriander Drive, Churchdown, Gloucestershire, sued the Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee - the charity which runs the centre - for millions of pounds in compensation.
At the High Court in July last year, Judge Richard Foster ruled that Mr Poppleton had attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall, far beyond his capabilities, and was three-quarters to blame for his own misfortune.
But he said he could claim compensation on the basis that the centre was 25% to blame, meaning he was still entitled to substantial damages, possibly running to seven figures.
The judge made his finding on the basis that the centre should have warned Mr Poppleton that thick safety matting on the floor didn't necessarily make the climbing wall safe.
However today, at London's Court of Appeal, Lord Justice May, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Sir Paul Kennedy, said Mr Poppleton was entirely to blame for the tragedy.
"It is to my mind quite obvious that no amount of matting will avoid absolutely the risk of possibly severe injury from an awkward fall and that the possibility of an awkward fall is an obvious and inherent risk of this kind of climbing," said the judge.
"Mr Poppleton's evidence was that he did not think it was that risky, indicating he knew there was a risk."
Later in his judgement, Lord Justice May added: "There being inherent and obvious risks in the activity which Mr Poppleton was voluntarily undertaking, the law did not require the trustees to prevent him from undertaking it, nor to train him or supervise him while he did it, or see that others did so.
"If the law required training or supervision in this case, it would equally be required for a multitude of other commonplace leisure activities which nevertheless carry with them a degree of obvious inherent risk - as for instance bathing in the sea."
The judge also said that it "made no difference" that Mr Poppleton had been charged for using the climbing wall, and said that it was "plainly obvious" there was some risk of falling from the wall.
And he dismissed a cross appeal brought by Mr Poppleton's legal team, who had argued that a finding of just 25% negligence on the part of the centre was not enough, as the then 25-year-old had been given no instruction or warning about safe use of the facility, and had not been asked about his abilities as a climber.
At an April hearing, the charity's counsel, Mr William Norris QC, argued that to find the trustees liable for Mr Poppleton's injuries "would be over-regulation and what is now referred to daily as the nanny state".
Mr Norris said that it was "fundamentally absurd" to describe the crash mat as a "hidden or latent danger" which had lured Mr Poppleton into a false sense of security.
He added: "Mr Poppleton, as an adult, voluntarily accepted the risk of falling and must, like any adult, be taken to have recognised the risk - however remote that may have been - that he would suffer serious injury, even falling onto a soft surface.
"There was no sound basis upon which the judge was entitled to find that, even had some warning been given, it would have made the slightest difference...There should be no duty to explain the obvious to a consenting adult.
"There is a limit to the information and advice that you need to volunteer to an adult who does not ask for any. He was an adult, entirely free to make his own choices. He also knew perfectly well, when he chose to jump, that there was a risk of falling...He recognised the risk and chose to take it."
Mr Poppleton - who had worked for Bass brewery since he was 19 and was doing well as a "trouble shooter" taking over troublesome kitchens at pubs all over the country - had gone to the activity centre with a group of friends.
The keen cyclist, who worked out regularly with weights, was "bouldering" on the climbing wall when he fell as he attempted a challenging jump towards a grab bar, somersaulting in the air and landing on his head.
In reply to Simon Lee:
You could paralyse yourself tripping over while walking. It's not about the fall its about how the fall is stopped. I'm asssuming he either slipped while jumping for the bar or caught the bar, swung and then lost grip after rotation had been initiated
You could paralyse yourself tripping over while walking. It's not about the fall its about how the fall is stopped. I'm asssuming he either slipped while jumping for the bar or caught the bar, swung and then lost grip after rotation had been initiated
In reply to idiotproof:
Agreed.
I spent 6 months visiting a friend in a spinal injuries hospital after a car crash, about 50% of the people in there were the result of falling stupidly short distances (ie 2m or less, off houshold stepladders etc).
The worst was a wheelchair-bound guy in his 30's who simply fell off a chair in an awkward way.
> (In reply to Simon Lee)
>
> You could paralyse yourself tripping over while walking. It's not about the fall its about how the fall is stopped.
>
> You could paralyse yourself tripping over while walking. It's not about the fall its about how the fall is stopped.
Agreed.
I spent 6 months visiting a friend in a spinal injuries hospital after a car crash, about 50% of the people in there were the result of falling stupidly short distances (ie 2m or less, off houshold stepladders etc).
The worst was a wheelchair-bound guy in his 30's who simply fell off a chair in an awkward way.
In reply to Simon Lee:
It should be Simon. The wall you use regularly has it writ large in its terms and conditions! If you fall directly onto your head it is very likely your neck will break. Big red mats don't change that.
Iain
> (In reply to John Alcock)
>
>
> Falling 1.45metres whilst bouldering and paralysing himself - is that correct ?
>
> If so, the probable risk of severe injury would not have been obvious to me either.
>
>
> Falling 1.45metres whilst bouldering and paralysing himself - is that correct ?
>
> If so, the probable risk of severe injury would not have been obvious to me either.
It should be Simon. The wall you use regularly has it writ large in its terms and conditions! If you fall directly onto your head it is very likely your neck will break. Big red mats don't change that.
Iain
In reply to Simon Lee:
if you read:
"attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall"
The chances are he handed on his head upside down after jumping for an hold on an overhang with feet swinging around and no control..
an accident like this regardless of who is to balme is still awful for the injured.
> (In reply to John Alcock)
>
>
> Falling 1.45metres whilst bouldering and paralysing himself - is that correct ?
>
>
> Falling 1.45metres whilst bouldering and paralysing himself - is that correct ?
if you read:
"attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall"
The chances are he handed on his head upside down after jumping for an hold on an overhang with feet swinging around and no control..
an accident like this regardless of who is to balme is still awful for the injured.
In reply to noggy:
to be honest falling short distances 'can' be worse as you have no time to manouvre you limbs to protect yourself.
Like cats falling out of windows, after na certain level of floors the survival rate increases as they have managed to prepare/orientate themselves for landing (something to do with terminal velocity of a plummetting pussy in there aswell).
to be honest falling short distances 'can' be worse as you have no time to manouvre you limbs to protect yourself.
Like cats falling out of windows, after na certain level of floors the survival rate increases as they have managed to prepare/orientate themselves for landing (something to do with terminal velocity of a plummetting pussy in there aswell).
In reply to BigMac:
>"attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall"
Also known as a dyno.
A victory for common sense, yes. But also my sympathies to the victim. It could happen to any of us.
>"attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall"
Also known as a dyno.
A victory for common sense, yes. But also my sympathies to the victim. It could happen to any of us.
In reply to dread-i:
>"attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall"
This is true, but the vast majority of walls should/would not set a *dyno* where you are likely to loose too much control of your feel and risk swinging backwards or forwards, which is just as bad, so in this case it was more than likely as described a "dangerous and foolhardy manoeuvre"
>"attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall"
> Also known as a dyno.
This is true, but the vast majority of walls should/would not set a *dyno* where you are likely to loose too much control of your feel and risk swinging backwards or forwards, which is just as bad, so in this case it was more than likely as described a "dangerous and foolhardy manoeuvre"
In reply to idiotproof:
As with a lot of accident type threads, people will read this one wiser of the potential risks, this time the 'safe' activity of bouldering being in the spotlight.
I feel for the injured climber though, life in a wheelchair after leading an active, ablebodied life before is going to be a real test.
The climbing wall I use has a notice in it's bouldering room stating the mats are for controlled jump-offs only and that uncontrolled falls may lead to serious injury. Probably the same as many walls(?)
As with a lot of accident type threads, people will read this one wiser of the potential risks, this time the 'safe' activity of bouldering being in the spotlight.
I feel for the injured climber though, life in a wheelchair after leading an active, ablebodied life before is going to be a real test.
The climbing wall I use has a notice in it's bouldering room stating the mats are for controlled jump-offs only and that uncontrolled falls may lead to serious injury. Probably the same as many walls(?)
In reply to BigMac:
>This is true, but the vast majority of walls should/would not set a *dyno* where you are likely to loose too much control
I agree. But have you ever jumped for a hold that was out of reach or even just for fun, regardless of if it was part of the problem or not?
Some people may classify all climbing as dangerous or foolhardy and we are all aware that there is an element of danger involved, which of course is part of the attraction. I wasn't trying to judge the guy or overturn the court case, simply stating that what we may call a dyno, some one without a climbing background might call reckless.
>This is true, but the vast majority of walls should/would not set a *dyno* where you are likely to loose too much control
I agree. But have you ever jumped for a hold that was out of reach or even just for fun, regardless of if it was part of the problem or not?
Some people may classify all climbing as dangerous or foolhardy and we are all aware that there is an element of danger involved, which of course is part of the attraction. I wasn't trying to judge the guy or overturn the court case, simply stating that what we may call a dyno, some one without a climbing background might call reckless.
In reply to dread-i:
> (In reply to BigMac)
> >"attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall"
> Also known as a dyno.
>
Possibly also known as swinging around on beams and girders that aren't part of the climbing surface.> >"attempted a "dangerous and foolhardy" jumping manoeuvre on the climbing wall"
> Also known as a dyno.
>
In reply to The Climbing Works:
>Possibly also known as swinging around on beams and girders that aren't part of the climbing surface.
Could well be the case. The report at the top says "grab bar", but again that could have been the wrong description. I know that at Salford uni wall there is a bar at the top which could be described as a grab bar or a belay bar for top roping. This is above areas that have specific documented boulder problems on them. It is common practice to finish a problem by grabbing the bar with both hands.
>Possibly also known as swinging around on beams and girders that aren't part of the climbing surface.
Could well be the case. The report at the top says "grab bar", but again that could have been the wrong description. I know that at Salford uni wall there is a bar at the top which could be described as a grab bar or a belay bar for top roping. This is above areas that have specific documented boulder problems on them. It is common practice to finish a problem by grabbing the bar with both hands.
In reply to John Alcock:
My God, common sense at last.
This was much discussed at the time. I said at the time I had described the facts to a High Court judge and a couple of QCs - by coincidence at the annual event of the same organisation I'm going to tonight - and with one voice they said an appeal should succeed.
jcm
My God, common sense at last.
This was much discussed at the time. I said at the time I had described the facts to a High Court judge and a couple of QCs - by coincidence at the annual event of the same organisation I'm going to tonight - and with one voice they said an appeal should succeed.
jcm
> As with a lot of accident type threads, people will read this one wiser of the potential risks, this time the 'safe' activity of bouldering being in the spotlight.
The words "safe" and bouldering/climbing should never be in the same sentence.
A note for any wall owners: Climbing walls that offer a "safe" environment or class bouldering as a "safe" activity are compromising the validity and terms of their facility and waiver.
In reply to riggwelter:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/646.html
Judgment is here, if anyone wants to read it.
jcm
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/646.html
Judgment is here, if anyone wants to read it.
jcm
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
Hi Iain - its an improbable risk rather than a probable one. A manoevre 1.45metres above a mat would not be considered in most climbing circles as especially risky or foolhardy even though the chance of an accident demonstrably exists.
Its hard to tell from the write ups but if he was arsing about jumping from one wall to grab the rail on an 'adjacent' wall which would be riskier than attempting a dyno for a grab rail (materially no diffrent than a dyno for a jug). However, for a beginner the distinction between what constituted a normal bouldering move and what didnt would not be so obvious.
In any case him being unlucky does not mean the climbing wall was at fault.
Poor sod.
Hi Iain - its an improbable risk rather than a probable one. A manoevre 1.45metres above a mat would not be considered in most climbing circles as especially risky or foolhardy even though the chance of an accident demonstrably exists.
Its hard to tell from the write ups but if he was arsing about jumping from one wall to grab the rail on an 'adjacent' wall which would be riskier than attempting a dyno for a grab rail (materially no diffrent than a dyno for a jug). However, for a beginner the distinction between what constituted a normal bouldering move and what didnt would not be so obvious.
In any case him being unlucky does not mean the climbing wall was at fault.
Poor sod.
In reply to dread-i:
This accident was at the Portsmouth wall - I don't know if its still the same but there were scaffold style bars around the top of all the bouldering walls when I climbed there.
The wall in question:-
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=2495
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=2496
> (In reply to The Climbing Works)
> >Possibly also known as swinging around on beams and girders that aren't part of the climbing surface.
> Could well be the case. The report at the top says "grab bar", but again that could have been the wrong description.
> >Possibly also known as swinging around on beams and girders that aren't part of the climbing surface.
> Could well be the case. The report at the top says "grab bar", but again that could have been the wrong description.
This accident was at the Portsmouth wall - I don't know if its still the same but there were scaffold style bars around the top of all the bouldering walls when I climbed there.
The wall in question:-
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=2495
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=2496
In reply to John Alcock: "The risk of probably severe injury from an awkward fall was obvious and did not sustain a duty in the appellants to warn Mr Poppleton of it," he said.
I realise now I mis-read that to say "The probable risk of severe injury" hence my comment which I otherwise wouldnt have made.
Note to self - read more carefully.
I realise now I mis-read that to say "The probable risk of severe injury" hence my comment which I otherwise wouldnt have made.
Note to self - read more carefully.
In reply to riggwelter:
I think you misread that, I had the word 'safe' in quotation marks.
No climbing wall I've been to has regarded bouldering as safe, or stated as such... but most of my climbing friends do regard bouldering as a 'safe' form of climbing due to the small heights involved. I'm assuming that's an opinion held by many in the climbing community(?).
It's not my own view though, some outdoor bouldering problems I've seen look like they have pretty serious implications if you fell off, awkwardly or not...
I think you misread that, I had the word 'safe' in quotation marks.
No climbing wall I've been to has regarded bouldering as safe, or stated as such... but most of my climbing friends do regard bouldering as a 'safe' form of climbing due to the small heights involved. I'm assuming that's an opinion held by many in the climbing community(?).
It's not my own view though, some outdoor bouldering problems I've seen look like they have pretty serious implications if you fell off, awkwardly or not...
In reply to phil webber:
That is the same sort of set up as Salford.
That is the same sort of set up as Salford.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The opinion defines bouldering as 'simulated rock climbing'. I suspect that definition wouldn't go over too well on UKB!
The opinion defines bouldering as 'simulated rock climbing'. I suspect that definition wouldn't go over too well on UKB!
In reply to noggy:
My statement was'nt aimed at you personaly. I apologise if it seemed that way.
As a gym owner I am very aware of these issues and have read advertisments, brochures and web pages from some walls/gyms, that have used the word safe in their literature. All they need to do is read the definition of 'safe' and realise the hot water they could be getting themselves into.
My statement was'nt aimed at you personaly. I apologise if it seemed that way.
As a gym owner I am very aware of these issues and have read advertisments, brochures and web pages from some walls/gyms, that have used the word safe in their literature. All they need to do is read the definition of 'safe' and realise the hot water they could be getting themselves into.
In reply to Simon Lee:
> (In reply to John Alcock) "The risk of probably severe injury from an awkward fall was obvious and did not sustain a duty in the appellants to warn Mr Poppleton of it," he said.
>
>
> I realise now I mis-read that to say "The probable risk of severe injury" hence my comment which I otherwise wouldnt have made.
>
Ahhhh. I understand your comment better now. Describing it as a probable risk would indeed have stretched it a bit far. >
>
> I realise now I mis-read that to say "The probable risk of severe injury" hence my comment which I otherwise wouldnt have made.
>
In reply to noggy:
Sadly I think you may be right (hence my jumping down Simon's throat). Ironically bouldering walls are statistically where accidents are more likely to occur, particularly to under18s.
> (In reply to riggwelter)
> ..but most of my climbing friends do regard bouldering as a 'safe' form of climbing due to the small heights involved. I'm assuming that's an opinion held by many in the climbing community(?).
> ..but most of my climbing friends do regard bouldering as a 'safe' form of climbing due to the small heights involved. I'm assuming that's an opinion held by many in the climbing community(?).
Sadly I think you may be right (hence my jumping down Simon's throat). Ironically bouldering walls are statistically where accidents are more likely to occur, particularly to under18s.
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
Of course you're more likely to hurt yourself a bit bouldering - broken ankles etc. Less likely to kill yourself, though.
Tetraplegia - about equally likely, maybe?
jcm
Of course you're more likely to hurt yourself a bit bouldering - broken ankles etc. Less likely to kill yourself, though.
Tetraplegia - about equally likely, maybe?
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Tetraplegia - about equally likely, maybe?
That, sir, is a grim poser and a brilliant illustration of overall risk.
Does the lower risk, higher number bouldering groundfalls result in a similar number of disabling incidents as higher risk, lower number leader groundfalls ?
That, sir, is a grim poser and a brilliant illustration of overall risk.
Does the lower risk, higher number bouldering groundfalls result in a similar number of disabling incidents as higher risk, lower number leader groundfalls ?
In reply to idiotproof: Are there really statistics on the survival rate of cats falling from different floor heights? Are these reported by the general cat owning public (or possible the general cat-hating public)? Or are they the result of controlled experiments. I recall that throwing cats from the tower in Ypres was a tradition associated with the expunging of evilness - this would have been a useful opportunity to conduct research but I don't think it still happens. Also, I think the cats mostly didn't fare too well otherwise, rather than expunging evil, the effect would probably be to really piss the cats off. Hold on, I've just spotted the cat from next door in our garden...
... I'm going to need some more cats - I'll get back to you.
... I'm going to need some more cats - I'll get back to you.
In reply to matt perks:
I saw something about this a while ago, I think the data was taken from info gained from vet records but I could be talking rubbish.
I saw something about this a while ago, I think the data was taken from info gained from vet records but I could be talking rubbish.
In reply to John Alcock:
As a personal injury lawyer it drives me nuts when people talk of the "compensation culture". It does not exist! Judges are making decisions like this one on a daily basis - what most people would consider common sense judgements. The "culture" such as it is is all in the perception and that is perpetuated and disseminated by the media (John! I have read your profile...) We are not on the point of nannying ourselves to death.
The principle of "volenti non fit injuria" is a strong one and one that judges are reluctant to depart from - if you decide to engage in a dangerous activity you do so at your own risk.
As a personal injury lawyer it drives me nuts when people talk of the "compensation culture". It does not exist! Judges are making decisions like this one on a daily basis - what most people would consider common sense judgements. The "culture" such as it is is all in the perception and that is perpetuated and disseminated by the media (John! I have read your profile...) We are not on the point of nannying ourselves to death.
The principle of "volenti non fit injuria" is a strong one and one that judges are reluctant to depart from - if you decide to engage in a dangerous activity you do so at your own risk.
In reply to Reach>Talent:
It's from QI. From New York vets' records, they claim.
Strikes me as a bit improbable since you wouldn't think the dead ones would make it to vets' records, but hey.
jcm
It's from QI. From New York vets' records, they claim.
Strikes me as a bit improbable since you wouldn't think the dead ones would make it to vets' records, but hey.
jcm
In reply to olive:
the reason the myth of compensation culture exists is misleading journalism. When someone sues a company for something which fits the bill, it gets reported, as it sells newspapers and provokes a reaction. When the case is thrown out of court, it is ignored.
the reason the myth of compensation culture exists is misleading journalism. When someone sues a company for something which fits the bill, it gets reported, as it sells newspapers and provokes a reaction. When the case is thrown out of court, it is ignored.
In reply to matt perks: http://www.scribd.com/doc/85/Falling-Cats
In reply to John Alcock:
I can feel nothing but sympathy for the situation of the man, but agree totally with the judgement of the Appeal Court, which does seem to follow common sense.
In Reply to BigMac:
>This is true, but the vast majority of walls should/would not set a *dyno* where you are likely to loose too much control of your feel and risk swinging backwards or forwards, which is just as bad, so in this case it was more than likely as described a "dangerous and foolhardy manoeuvre"
By the sound of it it doesn't look as though what he attempted to do was part of an official route, if he is attempting to "swing or jump across to a grab bar on an adjacent wall" - so it sounds as though - and this is pure speculation - that he was probably with some mates and they were doing this same maneouvre 'cos it was risky and spectacular if you latched it...
If he'd been doing something similar at the Outdoors Show attempting to qualify for the World Dyno Record, and had fallen and broken his neck, he might have a case in point.
I'm guessing what he tried to do was not part of an official route, though? Does anyone know this for sure?
I can feel nothing but sympathy for the situation of the man, but agree totally with the judgement of the Appeal Court, which does seem to follow common sense.
In Reply to BigMac:
>This is true, but the vast majority of walls should/would not set a *dyno* where you are likely to loose too much control of your feel and risk swinging backwards or forwards, which is just as bad, so in this case it was more than likely as described a "dangerous and foolhardy manoeuvre"
By the sound of it it doesn't look as though what he attempted to do was part of an official route, if he is attempting to "swing or jump across to a grab bar on an adjacent wall" - so it sounds as though - and this is pure speculation - that he was probably with some mates and they were doing this same maneouvre 'cos it was risky and spectacular if you latched it...
If he'd been doing something similar at the Outdoors Show attempting to qualify for the World Dyno Record, and had fallen and broken his neck, he might have a case in point.
I'm guessing what he tried to do was not part of an official route, though? Does anyone know this for sure?
In reply to Dominion:
Yes, it's clear from the judgment the chap was trying to jump from one wall to catch one of the bars on another wall.
Rather remarkably, according to the judgment the court received expert evidence that mats did not reduce the possibility of injury. The name of this expert is not given. Anyone got the first judgment anywhere?
jcm
Yes, it's clear from the judgment the chap was trying to jump from one wall to catch one of the bars on another wall.
Rather remarkably, according to the judgment the court received expert evidence that mats did not reduce the possibility of injury. The name of this expert is not given. Anyone got the first judgment anywhere?
jcm
In reply to James_D:
That and all the ambulance chasers advertising on daytime tv. (Claims Direct, Accident Helpline, Pondslimelawyers4u.com etc ad nauseum)
If the 'compensation culture' is a myth, how come climbing walls' insurance premiums have gone through the roof over the last few years? (Along with everyone elses)
> (In reply to olive)
> the reason the myth of compensation culture exists is misleading journalism.
> the reason the myth of compensation culture exists is misleading journalism.
That and all the ambulance chasers advertising on daytime tv. (Claims Direct, Accident Helpline, Pondslimelawyers4u.com etc ad nauseum)
If the 'compensation culture' is a myth, how come climbing walls' insurance premiums have gone through the roof over the last few years? (Along with everyone elses)
In reply to John Alcock: Good thread, thanks for posting the info.
Like others I've been following the case and this legal precedent is good news for all climbers.
PS IIRC climbing wall insurance premium increases had stabilised in recent years and the hope is/was that with better accident reporting across the sector they would decline slightly. This judgment will also help.
Like others I've been following the case and this legal precedent is good news for all climbers.
PS IIRC climbing wall insurance premium increases had stabilised in recent years and the hope is/was that with better accident reporting across the sector they would decline slightly. This judgment will also help.
In reply to Dominion:>
From JCM's link to the judgement:
There were Climbing Walls Rules on a board outside the climbing room which expert evidence agreed should have been more prominently displayed. The Rules included an injunction not to jump off the walls and not to climb on top of structures including the metal bars that cross the room. Mr Poppleton did not read these rules and did not appreciate that he was not supposed to jump from the walls. He in fact imitated others whom he saw doing so. He also saw Stuart Nash leap from the back wall to grab hold of a girder and then drop to the floor. Mr Poppleton tried to do a similar leap from the back wall to grab hold of the buttress or the top rope bar on the opposite wall. He did not manage to complete this leap successfully, but lost his grip. He somersaulted in the air and fell to the matting below landing on his head. He was very badly injured and is now tetraplegic. The manoeuvre which he was attempting was dangerous and risky for a novice climber such as he was.
> I'm guessing what he tried to do was not part of an official route, though? Does anyone know this for sure?
From JCM's link to the judgement:
There were Climbing Walls Rules on a board outside the climbing room which expert evidence agreed should have been more prominently displayed. The Rules included an injunction not to jump off the walls and not to climb on top of structures including the metal bars that cross the room. Mr Poppleton did not read these rules and did not appreciate that he was not supposed to jump from the walls. He in fact imitated others whom he saw doing so. He also saw Stuart Nash leap from the back wall to grab hold of a girder and then drop to the floor. Mr Poppleton tried to do a similar leap from the back wall to grab hold of the buttress or the top rope bar on the opposite wall. He did not manage to complete this leap successfully, but lost his grip. He somersaulted in the air and fell to the matting below landing on his head. He was very badly injured and is now tetraplegic. The manoeuvre which he was attempting was dangerous and risky for a novice climber such as he was.
In reply to olive: I agree that the 'compensation culture' is an over hyped creation of the media and that volenti is a strong defence. Julian Fulbrook's Outdoor Activities, Negligence and the Law gives a good, clear picture of the legal position (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Outdoor-Activities-Negligence-Julian-Fullbrook/dp/0... - expensive but then its written by a barister. BUT the fact that every year or so walls are (successfully so far) being forced to defend cases like this suggests to me that not all members of the legal profession are aware of this or (being a cynic) they are just chancing their arm and hoping to get lucky and win one!
Al
Al
In reply to deepsoup:
I'm looking for a lawyer at the moment and that link doesn't seem to work? Have you got any others?
> Pondslimelawyers4u.com
I'm looking for a lawyer at the moment and that link doesn't seem to work? Have you got any others?
In reply to deepsoup:
Purely annecdotal evidence, but a freind who briefly worked at the foundry said they got sued a lot, so their premiums went up, but none of the claims actually got any money. Does anyone know of a wall that has been succesfully sued?
> (In reply to James_D)
> [...]
>
> If the 'compensation culture' is a myth, how come climbing walls' insurance premiums have gone through the roof over the last few years? (Along with everyone elses)
> [...]
>
> If the 'compensation culture' is a myth, how come climbing walls' insurance premiums have gone through the roof over the last few years? (Along with everyone elses)
Purely annecdotal evidence, but a freind who briefly worked at the foundry said they got sued a lot, so their premiums went up, but none of the claims actually got any money. Does anyone know of a wall that has been succesfully sued?
In reply to James_D:
Cliff's Barn?
> (In reply to deepsoup)
> [...]
>
> Does anyone know of a wall that has been succesfully sued?
> [...]
>
> Does anyone know of a wall that has been succesfully sued?
Cliff's Barn?
In reply to everyone really:
Imagine this:
A very new, or non-climber (who doesn't really know the score) turns up at a wall.
They try some stuff that more experienced mates (who do) find ok.
It goes wrong.
Where is the error in judgement?
In the wall-owner who didn't spell out every last possibility for harm?
In the mates who, in an air of general rivalry and a good time being had, egged them on?
Or in the individual, who was too easily-led by the mates and never really read the wall's instructions anyway?
I guess these days people sue because they think there is an insurance policy behind the accused....and they know they are going to need high-cost care but may have reduced income (see the issue of kids on bouncy castles at parties).
John
Imagine this:
A very new, or non-climber (who doesn't really know the score) turns up at a wall.
They try some stuff that more experienced mates (who do) find ok.
It goes wrong.
Where is the error in judgement?
In the wall-owner who didn't spell out every last possibility for harm?
In the mates who, in an air of general rivalry and a good time being had, egged them on?
Or in the individual, who was too easily-led by the mates and never really read the wall's instructions anyway?
I guess these days people sue because they think there is an insurance policy behind the accused....and they know they are going to need high-cost care but may have reduced income (see the issue of kids on bouncy castles at parties).
John
In reply to Serpico:
a little more detail would be appreciated...
But in any case, we have *1* example, out of the many walls in this country.
> (In reply to James_D)
> [...]
>
> Cliff's Barn?
> [...]
>
> Cliff's Barn?
a little more detail would be appreciated...
But in any case, we have *1* example, out of the many walls in this country.
In reply to Serpico:
Cliffsbarn Climbing Centre was opened in 1992 as part of a farm diversification project. Ed and Mark realised the potential that the space of the old milking barn had, and with the help of a family friend and soon to be extraordinaire wall builder Colin Rockley they clubbed together to create the Legendary ‘Barn’.
Initial visitor predictions were soon exceeded as the unique wall design, friendly and warm yet slightly competitive atmosphere, and the start of the bouldering boom combined to create thriving wall community.
The design of the wall was pretty much unique in its time as it was the first to use featured paneled walls when most others were moulded resin/concrete. It also has a massive range of angled surfaces to climb on, from slab to horizontal roof, a complete circular traverse, and then there was the cellar.. the first wall to use curved plywood combined with wooden holds.
Over the years the ‘Barn’ became a local training facility for many a ‘hotshot’, the likes of Pete Black a weekly regular, cranking many a hideous rock over, the ‘pexhill’ crew, Mick Lovatt, Ian Vickers, Gaz Parry, and someone who recognized the potential of the cellar as a ‘power endurance’ training facility (like you do?!) Neil Carson.
Unfortunately the success of the ‘Barn’ was to encounter troubled times. A serious problem that is still the plague of all Climbing Walls, the suing culture, saw a number of injuries in 2002 and subsequent insurance claims. The inevitable result was the closure of the barn.
Fortunately over the intervening years, Rock and River an Outdoor Pursuits Centre that made its base at the farm, grew as a business and in 2005 became able to support the high insurance cost for the wall. Also the return Paul Robins an old devotee to the barn, who joined Rock and River 2005, took on the role of running the barn.
Over the last few years the barn has steadily picked up momentum and is now a thriving wall again. A few refurbishments have been made, a new cellar built, refab to the main wall with ‘volumes’, a regular competition series and new walls planned for the future.
But it's now closed permanently due to insurance costs, apparently.
Cliffsbarn Climbing Centre was opened in 1992 as part of a farm diversification project. Ed and Mark realised the potential that the space of the old milking barn had, and with the help of a family friend and soon to be extraordinaire wall builder Colin Rockley they clubbed together to create the Legendary ‘Barn’.
Initial visitor predictions were soon exceeded as the unique wall design, friendly and warm yet slightly competitive atmosphere, and the start of the bouldering boom combined to create thriving wall community.
The design of the wall was pretty much unique in its time as it was the first to use featured paneled walls when most others were moulded resin/concrete. It also has a massive range of angled surfaces to climb on, from slab to horizontal roof, a complete circular traverse, and then there was the cellar.. the first wall to use curved plywood combined with wooden holds.
Over the years the ‘Barn’ became a local training facility for many a ‘hotshot’, the likes of Pete Black a weekly regular, cranking many a hideous rock over, the ‘pexhill’ crew, Mick Lovatt, Ian Vickers, Gaz Parry, and someone who recognized the potential of the cellar as a ‘power endurance’ training facility (like you do?!) Neil Carson.
Unfortunately the success of the ‘Barn’ was to encounter troubled times. A serious problem that is still the plague of all Climbing Walls, the suing culture, saw a number of injuries in 2002 and subsequent insurance claims. The inevitable result was the closure of the barn.
Fortunately over the intervening years, Rock and River an Outdoor Pursuits Centre that made its base at the farm, grew as a business and in 2005 became able to support the high insurance cost for the wall. Also the return Paul Robins an old devotee to the barn, who joined Rock and River 2005, took on the role of running the barn.
Over the last few years the barn has steadily picked up momentum and is now a thriving wall again. A few refurbishments have been made, a new cellar built, refab to the main wall with ‘volumes’, a regular competition series and new walls planned for the future.
But it's now closed permanently due to insurance costs, apparently.
In reply to John Alcock: Interested in this case, from the perspective that 'informed consent had to exist' issue. The appeal judge, as explained here, believed that the hazards were obvious even to someone who had little understanding of the risks involved.
In reply to Moacs:
Bang on I reckon. And in the case of the poor chap at the centre of this story you really can't blame him for trying.
In answer to the question, everyone in your scenario is at fault to some degree, but to what degree is irrelevant. It'll be the wall that has to defend itself in court.
Here's a thought though.. If one or more of the mates are BMC members, and so have liability insurance, does that mean they're more likely to find themselves getting sued too?
> I guess these days people sue because they think there is an insurance policy behind the accused....and they know they are going to need high-cost care but may have reduced income (see the issue of kids on bouncy castles at parties).
Bang on I reckon. And in the case of the poor chap at the centre of this story you really can't blame him for trying.
In answer to the question, everyone in your scenario is at fault to some degree, but to what degree is irrelevant. It'll be the wall that has to defend itself in court.
Here's a thought though.. If one or more of the mates are BMC members, and so have liability insurance, does that mean they're more likely to find themselves getting sued too?
In reply to deepsoup: "And in the case of the poor chap at the centre of this story you really can't blame him for trying."
Quite - we can all tut about such claims, but if we were faced with needing lifelong care, how many of us would not do similar?
Quite - we can all tut about such claims, but if we were faced with needing lifelong care, how many of us would not do similar?
In reply to deacondeacon:
Don't most walls have a form you fill in indicating your level of ability and you sign to say you know the risks. That said, the forms don't absolve climbing and others using similar firms from their obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). Like most things in life they have a duty of care to us punters, but equally we have a part in the deal - understand the risks!!!!!
> (In reply to John Alcock) A very sad event to happen but the climber should have signed a form stating that he was competent to climb without instruction. If using a climbing wall wasn't at your own risk the costs involved in a session would be astronomical, with many climbing walls being inoperable due to higher insurance costs.
> I agree that its a victory against compensation culture but then again I havn't been paralysed from the neck down.
> I agree that its a victory against compensation culture but then again I havn't been paralysed from the neck down.
Don't most walls have a form you fill in indicating your level of ability and you sign to say you know the risks. That said, the forms don't absolve climbing and others using similar firms from their obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). Like most things in life they have a duty of care to us punters, but equally we have a part in the deal - understand the risks!!!!!
In reply to John Alcock: Now on the News Page:
Read More: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=06&year=2008#n44786
Thanks to John Alcock and John Cox and others.
Jack
Read More: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=06&year=2008#n44786
Thanks to John Alcock and John Cox and others.
Jack
In reply to James_D:
The fact that few claims have been succesful is irrelevant to the cost of the premiums.
The insurers still have to defend the claim and so pay out legal fees etc. Solicitors and barristers do not come cheap.
A large part of insurance costs just goes to feeding the legal system.
The fact that few claims have been succesful is irrelevant to the cost of the premiums.
The insurers still have to defend the claim and so pay out legal fees etc. Solicitors and barristers do not come cheap.
A large part of insurance costs just goes to feeding the legal system.
In reply to neilh:
The successful party does of course recover from the unsuccessful claimant, at least assuming he's taken out legal expenses insurance it does. But in the general way you're right, of course.
jcm
The successful party does of course recover from the unsuccessful claimant, at least assuming he's taken out legal expenses insurance it does. But in the general way you're right, of course.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Only in relatively serious and/or high profile cases such as this one. I think many cases are quietly settled by insurers against the wishes of the wall. If an insurer can settle for a relatively small amount they may judge it simpler (and so cheaper?) just to do so.
Iain
> (In reply to neilh)
>
> The successful party does of course recover from the unsuccessful claimant, at least assuming he's taken out legal expenses insurance it does. But in the general way you're right, of course.
>
> jcm
>
> The successful party does of course recover from the unsuccessful claimant, at least assuming he's taken out legal expenses insurance it does. But in the general way you're right, of course.
>
> jcm
Only in relatively serious and/or high profile cases such as this one. I think many cases are quietly settled by insurers against the wishes of the wall. If an insurer can settle for a relatively small amount they may judge it simpler (and so cheaper?) just to do so.
Iain
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
John,
Thanks for clarifying. Interesting case, did you find out about the matting and expert witness question? Seems a little surprising, unless it was reducing the risk of *serious* injury (ie tetraplegia...) as a soft mat has saved my weak ankles more than once.
The person asking about sueing your experienced mates who egged you on vs the wall - depends on insurance I guess. Theres no point sueing some guy you know when he can't afford his mortgage - but if he is in the BMC and with public liability insurance...
John,
Thanks for clarifying. Interesting case, did you find out about the matting and expert witness question? Seems a little surprising, unless it was reducing the risk of *serious* injury (ie tetraplegia...) as a soft mat has saved my weak ankles more than once.
The person asking about sueing your experienced mates who egged you on vs the wall - depends on insurance I guess. Theres no point sueing some guy you know when he can't afford his mortgage - but if he is in the BMC and with public liability insurance...
In reply to John Alcock: Well, this has proved me and my dire warnings about the legal system wrong and I'm thankful for that...sympathy for the guy tho', NM
In reply to mozzer:
As in who it was, you mean? No, I didn't. I imagine the solicitors involved would probably tell one, were one so naughty as to ring up posing as a solicitor and saying you were looking for an expert witness in another case and could they let you have the contact details for the experts in this case. If anyone is so wicked as to do such a thing, be sure to name and shame on here.....
jcm
As in who it was, you mean? No, I didn't. I imagine the solicitors involved would probably tell one, were one so naughty as to ring up posing as a solicitor and saying you were looking for an expert witness in another case and could they let you have the contact details for the experts in this case. If anyone is so wicked as to do such a thing, be sure to name and shame on here.....
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Won't they just be using the fact that there are more injuries when a bouldering wall is equipped with mats than when it isn't? (Which presumably stems from the fact that people believe themselves safer with mats beneath them, so take bigger risks than they otherwise would).
However, if you took two identical falls, one onto a mat, one onto concrete, the mat reduces the chances of injury.
ie What the answer is depends on precisely what question is asked.
> Rather remarkably, according to the judgment the court received expert evidence that mats did not reduce the possibility of injury. The name of this expert is not given. Anyone got the first judgment anywhere?
Won't they just be using the fact that there are more injuries when a bouldering wall is equipped with mats than when it isn't? (Which presumably stems from the fact that people believe themselves safer with mats beneath them, so take bigger risks than they otherwise would).
However, if you took two identical falls, one onto a mat, one onto concrete, the mat reduces the chances of injury.
ie What the answer is depends on precisely what question is asked.
In reply to gingerkate:
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I assume you have at some point read the conditions of use forms on the back of a registration form or issued with the registration form, which the majority of climbing walls use, that I presume you will have signed to say you agree with that clearly states:
"The soft flooring under the bouldering walls is designed to provide a more comfortable landing for climbers falling or jumping from the bouldering wall. THE SOFT FLOORING DOES NOT MAKE THE CLIMBING ANY SAFER. Broken and sprained limbs are common on this type of climbing wall despite the soft landing. Uncontrolled falls are likely to result in injuries to yourself or others."
If someone is trying, something above and beyond normal bouldering and climbing techniques then sadly the kind of accident that has resulted from this fall is more likely, it is just a good job there was no third party involved.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> Rather remarkably, according to the judgment the court received expert evidence that mats did not reduce the possibility of injury. The name of this expert is not given.
I assume you have at some point read the conditions of use forms on the back of a registration form or issued with the registration form, which the majority of climbing walls use, that I presume you will have signed to say you agree with that clearly states:
"The soft flooring under the bouldering walls is designed to provide a more comfortable landing for climbers falling or jumping from the bouldering wall. THE SOFT FLOORING DOES NOT MAKE THE CLIMBING ANY SAFER. Broken and sprained limbs are common on this type of climbing wall despite the soft landing. Uncontrolled falls are likely to result in injuries to yourself or others."
If someone is trying, something above and beyond normal bouldering and climbing techniques then sadly the kind of accident that has resulted from this fall is more likely, it is just a good job there was no third party involved.
Sad case and my thoughts to Mr Poppleton. I do take heart though from paragraph 19 of the judgement. Especially:
'...the balance between risk on the one hand and individual autonomy on the other is not a matter of expert opinion. It is a judgment which the courts must make and which in England reflects the individualist values of the common law.'
My take on this is that by asserting our right to climb (walk, swim, cycle, canoe, etc...) we accept responsibility for our actions and the risks involved.
'...the balance between risk on the one hand and individual autonomy on the other is not a matter of expert opinion. It is a judgment which the courts must make and which in England reflects the individualist values of the common law.'
My take on this is that by asserting our right to climb (walk, swim, cycle, canoe, etc...) we accept responsibility for our actions and the risks involved.
In reply to BigMac:
Don't be ridiculous. You think I've read those silly disclaimers we sign??
Kate is right, of course, it depends on the question. Mats reduce the possibility of injury from a given fall, but are only part of what determines the probabilities of injury arising from any particular act in any particular envvronment.
jcm
Don't be ridiculous. You think I've read those silly disclaimers we sign??
Kate is right, of course, it depends on the question. Mats reduce the possibility of injury from a given fall, but are only part of what determines the probabilities of injury arising from any particular act in any particular envvronment.
jcm
In reply to John Alcock:
All sympathy to Mr Poppleton.
"(Mr Poppleton and some friends were "bouldering" )"
Did the gentleman put any claim in against the friends he was with, were they spotting him did they make any attempt to control his swing?
My friends and i activily spot each controling falls and swings does this make us liable?
Just curious?
All sympathy to Mr Poppleton.
"(Mr Poppleton and some friends were "bouldering" )"
Did the gentleman put any claim in against the friends he was with, were they spotting him did they make any attempt to control his swing?
My friends and i activily spot each controling falls and swings does this make us liable?
Just curious?
In reply to felloff:
Possibly if the spotter is grossly negligent? EG chatting to people next to him and not paying attention when the climber, who relying on his spotting and about to make a move, has said "watch me here"
> (In reply to John Alcock)
> All sympathy to Mr Poppleton.
> "(Mr Poppleton and some friends were "bouldering" )"
> All sympathy to Mr Poppleton.
> "(Mr Poppleton and some friends were "bouldering" )"
> My friends and i activily spot each controling falls and swings does this make us liable?
> Just curious?
> Just curious?
Possibly if the spotter is grossly negligent? EG chatting to people next to him and not paying attention when the climber, who relying on his spotting and about to make a move, has said "watch me here"
In reply to John Alcock:
Hi
I was the expert witness engaged by the Defence in this case. I regard the outcome as a success for common sense, and a helpful precedent for other climbing walls. Being aware of all the facts in the case, this is a sound judgement, but there are a number of lessons that could and should be learned from it... not sure of the best way forward, but will be discussing with the BMC amongst others.
There always seems to be a heightened interest immediately after a case like this, then it all goes "cool" again and people tend to lose interest... I might consider a magazine article as the best way to disseminate learning from this and other cases...
Hi
I was the expert witness engaged by the Defence in this case. I regard the outcome as a success for common sense, and a helpful precedent for other climbing walls. Being aware of all the facts in the case, this is a sound judgement, but there are a number of lessons that could and should be learned from it... not sure of the best way forward, but will be discussing with the BMC amongst others.
There always seems to be a heightened interest immediately after a case like this, then it all goes "cool" again and people tend to lose interest... I might consider a magazine article as the best way to disseminate learning from this and other cases...
In reply to Adge Last:
Yes please, that would be a worthwhile article.
> (In reply to John Alcock)
> I might consider a magazine article as the best way to disseminate learning from this and other cases...
> I might consider a magazine article as the best way to disseminate learning from this and other cases...
Yes please, that would be a worthwhile article.
In reply to Adge Last:
I am PI Solicitor and would be very interested to read such an article - but not just in the specialist climbing mags. Try and get it into a publication with a bigger circulation. This is important!
> (In reply to John Alcock)
> Hi
>
> I was the expert witness engaged by the Defence in this case. I might consider a magazine article as the best way to disseminate learning from this and other cases...
> Hi
>
> I was the expert witness engaged by the Defence in this case. I might consider a magazine article as the best way to disseminate learning from this and other cases...
I am PI Solicitor and would be very interested to read such an article - but not just in the specialist climbing mags. Try and get it into a publication with a bigger circulation. This is important!
In reply to Adge Last:
Adge...you might want to consider an article at UKClimbing.com. Far more people will read it and have the opportunity to comment and discuss what you have to say.
Email: jack@ukclimbing.com
> (In reply to John Alcock)
> I might consider a magazine article as the best way to disseminate learning from this and other cases...
Adge...you might want to consider an article at UKClimbing.com. Far more people will read it and have the opportunity to comment and discuss what you have to say.
Email: jack@ukclimbing.com
In reply to felloff:
I agree with Trangia -in theory it could do, yes. But common sense will prevail in the court room, I tell you!! (maybe more judges participate in dangerous sports than we realise)
> > My friends and i activily spot each controling falls and swings does this make us liable?
I agree with Trangia -in theory it could do, yes. But common sense will prevail in the court room, I tell you!! (maybe more judges participate in dangerous sports than we realise)
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...