/ Faulty rope led to amputation for outdoors instructor
Seems like pretty much f' all to someone has broken their back and lost a foot due to negligence.
>"does this mean the guy recieved £20'000 in compensation?"
No, that was just the 'Elf n safety fine. I'd think the compensation will be considerably more, picked up by the firm's insurers.
Cheers, law isn't my strong point.
That's an interesting assertion! Can you back it up?
Do you tell your customers about this, you're likely to be very short of work if you confess. Get yourself some decent insurance!
Unravelled? What sort of rope was it? Doesn't sound like a climbing rope...
So does that mean the rope wasn't faulty?
Reads like the person-end termination assembly was faulty. The use of the word rope in place of rope-assembly is rather confusing.
Hmmm, person end termination... sounds like they got it about right then! So, what should it look like? I'm having trouble imagining it.
Possibly a wire rope termination , that would be in line with the company's products.
So not a rope as we know it, but a cable?
Same word but different material in different fields (ie climbing -> nylon, lifting/cranes -> wire).
??? That is exactly what PII is for - so that if you get something wrong and are found negligent (in the legal sense), there are sufficient funds to pay damages to the claimant. Apart from a few situations where there is strict liability, if you haven't been negligent you won't be liable.
I used to deal a lot with very large centrally sourced insurance contracts. As others have noted, standard policies don't provide any kind of cover in the event of negligence or criminal misconduct. This makes sense - the alternative is that you could take out insurance and then go out to bankrupt the insurers through a series of deliberately reckless or damaging acts.
In reality, those who suffer harm because of the actions/omissions of an insured person do often receive payouts, even where negligence or criminality are involved. This is partly because it is worth the cost of the additional payout to maintain a reputation as providing reliable cover. It is also partly because it is usually simpler to close off the action surrounding the original incident by paying out, and to then start a separate action to recover the money from the insured party if there was negligence or similar involved.
I assume JCM will be along in a bit to tell us about the legal issues, what can & can't be insured etc.
Meanwhile, I must say I find your thread title rather misleading and unnecessarily alarmist on a clmbing forum. One immediately thinks/assumes "faulty CLIMBING rope, that's worrying, must read it" then finds some time later that it's about some knd of in-situ toproping rig that has nothing to do with normal climbing equipment.
I don't mean to imply any lack of sympathy of respect for the victim.
My terminology could be out here, but I'm pretty sure that you can be liable without being negligent. They are two different things.
You can. Civil liability simply means that you are responsible for the payment of damages etc.
You can be liable due to:
1. Contractual responsibility (e.g. you said you would pay for something but didn't).
2. Deliberate actions. (you set out to damage something that wasn't yours).
3. Negligence. (you failed to take reasonable precautions and someone suffered)
4. Strict liability. Where you are in a position that any harm suffered is automatically your responsibility.
PII does not cover the 1st two (and generally not the last), but is explicitly about covering negligence claims. Some policies (civil liability insurance) are much broader in range.
Yes you can. Car insurance, for example, exists for exactly that purpose.
You can insure against anything an insurance company will issue a policy on. It's simply a form of gambling - you bet that you will carry out the insured event, the insurer bets you won't.
Mystified by highclimber and others. If they're not insured against negligence, wtf are they insured against, pray?!
I think as others have said they are not insured against deliberate, wilful acts by the insured party. Near enough the whole point of liability insurance is to cover against negligence.
In the well-known Smiler Cuthbertson case he had used a single ice screw to belay from. This was a deliberate act, a choice made because, in his judgement as an experienced climber and guide, in the circumstances he felt that it was more important to move quickly rather than stay in a danger zone trying to set up a belay. They fell, the belay failed and his client was killed. The court found he was negligent, because he had failed to follow good practice which would recommend at least two belay points. His PII paid up.
It's interesting to speculate what the court might have decided if he had followed best practice and an accident occurred because they had not moved fast enough. I suspect the court might have decided that he had been negligent because he had delayed moving into a safer position in order to fix a better belay. Ultimately PII is there to protect the victim - in this case a widow and fatherless child - and where the circumstances allow different interpretations the courts will often try to find a way to compensate the victim.
"There had been a failure by the company to perform a simple measurement check on the end terminations to confirm they had been fully crushed."
Suggests it was swaged. It can be done with a textile rope, but it's more likely it was steel. The rope is put through a ferrule (a tube of copper or aluminium) which is then crushed between dies in a press to reduce its size and grip the rope.
Elsewhere on the site
Nuts, wires, stoppers, chocks, wedges, whatever you want to call them, have been around for a long time. Initially made from... Read more
Manchester Climbing Centre is showing Reel Rock’s Valley Uprising on Tuesday the 11th of November at... Read more
A pack designed for year-round ascents. Super light, flexible, strippable and seasonally versatile you can rely on this perennial... Read more
Pete Whittaker has flashed the 32 pitch route Freerider 5.12d on El Capitan in Yosemite Valley over three days,... Read more
From a personal point of view, photographing the night sky is one of the most difficult, frustrating yet ultimately rewarding... Read more