This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to Removed UserPete Cook: does this mean the guy recieved £20'000 in compensation?
Seems like pretty much f' all to someone has broken their back and lost a foot due to negligence.
Seems like pretty much f' all to someone has broken their back and lost a foot due to negligence.
In reply to deacondeacon:
>"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.
>"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.
In reply to deacondeacon: No this was the fine imposed by the courts on the supplier.
In reply to JLS: not if they were found to be negligent - you cant insure against negligence.
In reply to deacondeacon: What I cant understand is that a rope and termination that is destined to hold a human bodyweight in this system wasn't proof loaded in any way before use.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
That's an interesting assertion! Can you back it up?
> (In reply to JLS) not if they were found to be negligent - you cant insure against negligence.
That's an interesting assertion! Can you back it up?
In reply to timjones: My professional indemity policy does not cover me were I to be found negligent. I assume that this is the case in all policies. happy to be proved wrong.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:It won't protect you against being sued. It will provide compensation for people who you have injured. That's the whole point of it.
In reply to Removed UserPete Cook: The thread title is somewhat misleading. The rope didn't fail, that's very uncommon. The cleat on the end failed and it is easily understood why it failed. The amputation was caused (IMO) by the hospital missing the injury until it was too late. Which is another law suit completely...
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Do you tell your customers about this, you're likely to be very short of work if you confess. Get yourself some decent insurance!
> (In reply to timjones) My professional indemity policy does not cover me were I to be found negligent. I assume that this is the case in all policies. happy to be proved wrong.
Do you tell your customers about this, you're likely to be very short of work if you confess. Get yourself some decent insurance!
In reply to higherclimbingwales: might get a payout from the outdoor centre's insurance?
In reply to Removed UserPete Cook:
Unravelled? What sort of rope was it? Doesn't sound like a climbing rope...
> the rope supplied by Pfeifer Rope & Tackle Ltd simply unravelled as he stepped off a platform for a practice descent.
Unravelled? What sort of rope was it? Doesn't sound like a climbing rope...
In reply to jon: Sounds like the fitting on a captive eye they had created wasn't properly crushed.
In reply to jon: I read it to mean the captive eye too that was at fault.
In reply to jon: Yes to me it sounds like their procedure for creating the captive eye was at fault and that they failed to check it was properly fit for use.
In reply to jon:
Reads like the person-end termination assembly was faulty. The use of the word rope in place of rope-assembly is rather confusing.
jk
Reads like the person-end termination assembly was faulty. The use of the word rope in place of rope-assembly is rather confusing.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
Hmmm, person end termination... sounds like they got it about right then! So, what should it look like? I'm having trouble imagining it.
Hmmm, person end termination... sounds like they got it about right then! So, what should it look like? I'm having trouble imagining it.
In reply to jon:
Possibly a wire rope termination , that would be in line with the company's products.
http://www.pfeifer.de/emag/complett-2011-2012_english/#/220/
Possibly a wire rope termination , that would be in line with the company's products.
http://www.pfeifer.de/emag/complett-2011-2012_english/#/220/
In reply to DancingOnRock: Yes agree the HSE title is somewhat misleading which is what I copied exactly to post here!
In reply to jon:
Same word but different material in different fields (ie climbing -> nylon, lifting/cranes -> wire).
Same word but different material in different fields (ie climbing -> nylon, lifting/cranes -> wire).
In reply to Removed UserPete Cook: back in the day when I had professional indemnity insurance (albeit for providing software), I was never insured for negligence. If you do something daft, then you cop for the consequences. In this case, the way is now open for the man to bring a claim against both the centre and the manufacturer... Although I strongly suspect that the center are the culpable party. Much like whoever is driving a car needs to make sure that it is road worthy... Not the owner... I might be wrong! I'm sure that we will hear the next chapters if this story as it pans out...
In reply to BigHairyIan:
??? 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.
> (In reply to Pete Cook) back in the day when I had professional indemnity insurance ... I was never insured for negligence.
??? 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.
In reply to Removed UserPete Cook:
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 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.
In reply to Removed UserPete Cook:
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.
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.
In reply to Howard J:
My terminology could be out here, but I'm pretty sure that you can be liable without being negligent. They are two different things.
My terminology could be out here, but I'm pretty sure that you can be liable without being negligent. They are two different things.
In reply to jon: Think it might be webbing with a sewn termination.
In reply to hamsforlegs:
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.
> 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.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
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.
Neil
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.
Neil
In reply to Removed UserPete Cook:
Mystified by highclimber and others. If they're not insured against negligence, wtf are they insured against, pray?!
jcm
Mystified by highclimber and others. If they're not insured against negligence, wtf are they insured against, pray?!
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
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.
Neil
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.
Neil
In reply to Removed UserPete Cook: A deliberate act could still be negligent. Negligence in the legal sense is not the same as carelessness, in a professional context it means failing to do what could reasonably be expected of a professional in the same circumstances. This might mean failing to do something, or doing something wrong or badly. Usually if you follow recognised good practice you should be OK.
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.
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.
In reply to Baron Weasel:
This:
"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.
> (In reply to jon) Think it might be webbing with a sewn termination.
This:
"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.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...