UKC

Yes, we've all seen the disclaimers - climbing is dangerous, make your own judgement, etc etc. What do you reckon to this story ? :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6895926.stm

Whilst I have every sympathy for the chap involved - it's a terrible injury to suffer, and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone - how are the climbing centre to blame ? They have a duty of care to ensure the equipment they provide is up to scratch, but surely they can't be held responsible for people's actions / lack of experience ?

In reply to El Cap:

"should receive 25% damages"

Why! He should get nothing and pay costs!

In reply to El Cap:

At least the judge had his head screwed on. My problem with the whole thing is that the climber is called "foolhardy" throughout the article. I think that's a little strong personally, as reading the article he was trying something hard (for him). It seems that the judge believes someone who pushes themslves is being "foolhardy".

Anyway, what the f*ck did he take them to court for??? He fell, he (badly) hurt himself. Happens quite frequently in the climbing world, it's not anyones fault.

Josh.

In reply to freelancer_85:

Oh, I agree with Chris btw, he should have got nowt.

Without knowing the details it is hard to make a judgement.

At one time I used to go to this centre but I haven't been for years so things may have changed. I'm afraid I don't feel that it was well-maintained or well-supervised. I know someone who broke their foot there falling between a gap in the mats. The mats were in poor condition and there were not enough to cover the entire climbing area. I personally stopped going because it was poorly ventilated, rarely cleaned and the clouds of chalk dust played havoc with my lungs.

In reply to El Cap:

Climbing is inherently dangerous, much of the skill relates risk assesment, that is up to the individual, unless he was goaded into trying something he was inacpable of then, as much as this person has my sympathy the fault rests with him.

In reply to El Cap:
Off the point of your post, but: it goes on about how he tried a dangerous move or something... do you know what they're on about? Was he just pushing himself, and fell awkwardly, or did he do something other climbers would consider foolish?

In reply to El Cap: ]

Difficult one to comment on. I agree that this is not - in any way - the fault of the climbing centre, and that we all as climbers should take full responsibility for our own actions.

But who on this thread so far can say what they would do if they were so badly injured and knew they might struglle to get by etc. The guy probably knows all the stuff about climbing being inherently dangerous etc, but might be just trying to survive financially, or maybe support a family.

I'd like to think I wouldn't do the same, but who knows until they've been in his position.

In reply to freelancer_85:

Outside is one thing. Indoors, when you have paid to use a facility, is another. On an indoor bouldering wall, wouldn't you expect to be able to fall five feet without major injury?

In reply to El Cap:

This is the Fort Purbrook wall. Havent climbed there in a few years, but you had to sign the usual disclaimer about climbing being inherently dangerous when you joined, and there was signs advising people to climb down, not jump (which 99% ignored).

The BBC doesn't really eloborate as to what actually happened, but cant see how the wall is to blame.

In reply to Dogwatch:

I tend to agree. While I've no sympthy for the compensation seekers, I'd like to know the circumstances of the accident. If he tried to hang from his toes from the top of the bouldering wall then fair enough, bit of natural selection in play. If he fell off and landed on matting that wasn't up to spec then it's a different matter.

In reply to Ridge:
I've found a link which says what he actually did:
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleID=2133152&SectionI...

Poor sod.

In reply to El Cap: considering people regularly deck from much higher outside and usually get away with the odd broken bone, its incredibly unlucky to end up paralysed having fallen from 5 feet onto (presumably) matting.

In reply to Dogwatch:

Seeing as I know of many accidents where people have broken ankles, legs, wrists and arms using bouldering walls, and falling from I wouldn't be surprised if I landed nastily and broke something. In this case he was very unlucky, but I still wouldn't be off claiming compensation.

Josh.

In reply to freelancer_85:

Sounds like he was trying to jump from the wall to the tower in the bolt on holds room. Just must've been very unlucky to be injured the way he was. The mats are quite good at that bit.

In reply to ligaya:
I agree, incredibly unlucky. I still can't really imagine how it happened. How do you break your neck in such a short fall (onto matting) unless you somehow land head first? And I can't see how you land head first just jumping from one wall to another.

I'd like to know what the "foolhardy manoeuvre" was. Makes it sound as if he was tw*tting about rather than just attempting a tricky problem. Otherwise 99% of people bouldering at walls are attempting foolhardy manoeuvres in the eyes of the law. And perhaps that's the right way to look at it?

Even if the mats were in a state of disrepair it's still your responsibility to look after yourself. If I felt they weren't sufficient to properly protect a fall then I'd not climb above them.

I can't really see any case against the wall although it's a very sad story and, as mentioned, understandable that the guy has tried to get what he can.

In reply to seagull:

Read the link now. So he was tw*tting about.

In reply to Dogwatch:

No, absolutely not. I would expect to be able to land, on my feet, in a controlled fashion without sustaining an injury. That is not the same thing at all.

In reply to 1234None: Yeah, but an accident is an accident. If the centre has been found blameless they shouldn't be paying out. As pointed out on another thread today, we're lucky to have a welfare state programme that will provide some assistance, and it's likely that he'll have some form of insurance.

Feel bad for the guy - very unlucky.

In reply to El Cap:

Definitley a very unlucky incident. I can see why he tried to claim compensation given that his economic viability has just hit rock bottom.

But, climbing is potentially dangerous - and that is clear to ANYONE and EVERYONE. If he was jumping from or to a tower, then technically, that is NOT climbing. It is cocking about.

Thankfully the judge did appreciate the need to take responsibility for one's own actions.

In reply to seagull:
that would be my conclusion also

In reply to Dogwatch:

Absolutely not. You cannot gurantee safety. All they can do is try to lessen the risk of serious injury, but it doesn't mean you'll NEVER have a serious injury.

PeterM

In reply to El Cap:

I hope nothing like this ever happens to me, but if it does, I hope it doesn't make me pathologically obssessed with blaming someone else other than rotten bad luck and trying to claim whatever conpensation I can.

Poor guy, but imo he is wrong, as is the judge.

climbers generally understand that they have to look after themselves whether outside or in. walls sprung up in the first place to cater for this group. many climbing walls now appeal - intentionally - to both climbers and those who are looking for a new leisure activity. the latter will expect to be looked after, as they would be in any other paid leisure environment. i do not think that climbing walls can take this group's silver, and then expect them to have the judgement and risk awareness of the original climbing group.

In reply to helix:
i do not think that climbing walls can take this group's silver, and then expect them to have the judgement and risk awareness of the original climbing group.

But the guy was doing silly things not climbing things. You shouldn't get compensation for being silly unless you're a stand up comedian.

In reply to helix:
>and then expect them to have the judgement and risk awareness of the original climbing group.

And how, pray tell is a climbing wall able to do that?

Some kind of national qualification, a license to climb, a local induction certificate... you're on very dodgy ground here.

So of the people pontificating here, how many have been to this wall, and how many who have consider it well run and well maintained?

I have and I don't. Or at least didn't - it's been a while since I was there.

In reply to Dogwatch:


You have a point but the guy didn't hurt himself due to poor maintenance. As for poorly run - can you qualify how better running of the centre would have prevented this accident?

In reply to gingerkate:

I'm guessing by the way they mixed metric and imperial in the report that they actually meant 5 metres, which would be the top of the wall.

In reply to Serpico:

They quote 1.45m (4.75ft) which is about right. How do you conclude 5m???

In reply to Masood: Because in the report I read it says he fell from 5ft and then further in the report gives the height at which they're allowed to climb at over 4Mts. I presumed that this mixing of metric and imperial meant that the first mention of height was a mis-print and should also have been metres.

In reply to El Cap: did he even land on the mat it sounds like he was jumping onto a wall that wasnt ment for climbing

In reply to El Cap: His own fault, can't really blame the centre. His aim now?, to get money most likely, to help his own needs I guess.

In reply to atlantis:

ive been to the wall and have to say when I went it was dirty and really dusty, but well matted.

i did once speak to someone who was there at the time. His story was that the guy was tw*tting about; his feet were about 5 ft up, and he was trying to clamber around upside down (basically; can't exactly remember) on the tower seciton.

In reply to El Cap:

The reports said he was with two experienced climbers. I assume one of them had to sign him in saying that they would be guardians so to speak. Otherwise he should have gone on a training course. If you tick all the boxes of all the climbing walls I've ever been to, then the onus is on you. If something f*cks up, then you've no-one to blame but yourself.

Gutted for the bloke, but still no reason to try and get some money, when he, and his mates, were totally to blame.

In reply to El Cap: poor bloke

In reply to El Cap:
Theres generally a lot of rubbish spouted on Health and Safety law.

When you sign something to say you understand that something is dangerous, all it does is serve as a record that you were there when the centre explained to you it was dangerous. It doesn't prove you understood what was being explained to you. It certainly doesn't absolve them of any responsibilty for your actions.

Additionally under Health and Safetly laws the centre is guilty until proven innocent.

So the centre would have to prove that they had done everything possible to prevent the accident. Very hard to do. Hence the 25% awarded.

Did they provide training? Did they asses his abilities? Did he have to answer a questionaire?

When I used to climb at Pickets lock, you just signed a sheet to say you had read the conditions, that didn't prove that I had read them. When I used to climb at the Castle you had to answer some random questions? That goes a bit further.

That is why the staff tell you to stop doing things they consider are dangerous, it's to protect you AND them.

Now the center will probably get a fine and now be suject to very close scrutiny by the Health and Safety exec, with random visits and powers to shut down immediately if they find anything dangerous going on.

In reply to El Cap:

No! Climbing is risky, danger cannot be controlled...risk can.

In reply to El Cap:

What an unbelievable case. This area of the law is totally out of control.

If you hang around upside down and fall on your neck, you may be paralysed. And there's a duty of care on anyone to explain this to 31-year olds??? Has the report missed something - the climber had the mental agre of a ten-year-old and was on some kind of open day from an institution or something? Otherwise it's hard to imagine what on earth went through what passes for the judge's mind.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Nope there is a duty of care to explain and make sure that someone understands that holds spin and ropes break.

We know that, but why?
Because someone told us.

That area of law is designed to protect people who think they know everything from things outside their experience or that they cannot forsee.

What the report misses out is the bit about him hanging around upside down, or did I miss that?

In reply to El Cap:
In reply to El Cap:
Feel for the guy and hope he makes a recovery on some level, but with the exception of him being mentally disabled in some fashion, he was out climbing and hurt himself. End of story.
He doesnt have insurance to cover himself?
No climbers should be suing for this kind of accident unless there is serious, serious negligence on the part of a course provider or some such. This guy suing the wall owners (in my view) is the same as trying to sue a landowner for peeling off a crag on his land and hurting yourself. It's an unfortunate event but climbing is a risky business and all of us who pursue this sport have to accept that. Just ask American Soloist Michael Reardon, who tonight as I speak is missing off the coast of Kerry here in Ireland having fallen 70ft into the Atlantic. Rescue services have called off the search for the night. Details are not clear yet about what happened, but there you go. Climbing is dangerous.

In reply to El Cap:

The report seems very clear to me:

Judge Foster said that to impose a duty of care on the operators to assess Mr Poppleton's abilities as a climber before allowing him to use the facilities and then provide supervision would not be "just, fair and reasonable to impose".

and

"I am quite satisfied that the manoeuvre carried out by Mr Poppleton which gave rise to this accident was foolhardy, especially for a climber of his very limited experience.

however

Judge Richard Foster told the court on Thursday: "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.

In reply to El Cap: he's a knob, climbing is dangerous, climbing inside doesn't make it less dangerous and to blame someone else for his mistakes is wrong.. cock..

In reply to El Cap: Has anyone considered that due to the nature of his injuries, the Health and Safety Exec, or even at least his insurance company would be the ones driving the case. I think its unlikely he had any say.

In reply to Shani:


I don't think we know exactly how he hurt himself and whether the condition of the wall or mats had anything to do with it.

It's some years since I was there but at that time there weren't enough mats and they were poorly maintained. Someone I know broke their foot there when it slipped between a gap in the mats.

As for better running - there was no supervision and they allowed the bouldering room to be far too crowded sometimes, with not enough space left to stand clear of others climbing.

In reply to Dogwatch:
Snip

Presumably they have some form of registration whereby the customer states their competence as a climber. Why should "competent" users be supervised?

Next thing we know packets of peanuts will have "may contain nuts" marked on them.

It's idiots like this who are going to stop everyone from having fun. If you're the kind of person who's going to sue for something like that, then you should stay at home and watch TV in a padded room.

In reply to Philip M:

That's a pretty tactless and shameful post.

That 'idiot' is bound to do all he can to look after his own interests. The man is paralysed and his future care/support will be expensive. If he has a family he's practically duty-bound to attempt a claim especially if there's a chance of a payout, which there clearly was in this case since he received 25%.

The courts decision is the 'idiotic' thing in this case, not the claimants decision to attempt a case. We rely on the courts for objective decisions not on the claimants.

In reply to 'Rock'DJ:

I don't feel that my post was shameful at all. Why is he 'bound to do all he can to look after his own interests' at the expense of others? Why should the climbing wall pay out for his mistake? How should the climbing wall have prevented this? Should they allocate a spotter to every climber who uses the wall? Why should having a family make him 'duty bound to attempt a claim'? His insurance should cover him. He will also be eligible for disability allowance etc.

I agree that it was a very unfortunate accident and feel very sorry for the bloke; but it's claims like this that will lead to climbing walls shutting down, ridiculous signs like 'remember to tie your shoelaces', 'make sure you don't walk into this sign', and now-one being allowed to do anything without signing a disclaimer.

If the reports are wrong and a hold broke or the wall collapsed then he might have a point but if the report is correct then he should just suck it up.

In reply to 'Rock'DJ:
have to agree rockdj. suspect many here, myself included, who may take the moral highground and believe they would not attempt any legal action would think differently if they were actually faced with such a devastating and life altering situation accident. whilst yes he is probably to blame and yes the center should not have to bear the cost think about things from his perspective, paralysed from the neck down ffs, before being so quick to judge the poor chap.

In reply to erikb56:

So if I was walking up your front path to your door to post a letter and I unfortunately tripped and landed awkwardly, thus paralysing myself, would I be in the right to try to sue the hell out of you?

I'm afraid I think that people need to take a lot more responsibility for themselves and stop looking to blame someone all the time.

In reply to Philip M: agree with you there.today everyone wants to sue someone should something go wrong and they injure themselves.
the amount of bogus claims on house and car insurence policies are why the rest of us pay far higher insurence costs.

the best think to say about climbin gis "climbing is dangerous,if your not prepared to literally take your own life in your own hand then dont climb"

In reply to Philip M:
no you miss the point. you wouldn't be right to sue me but i would sympathise with why you might try.

In reply to El Cap:

As I said earlier. If he was insured, like a lot of us, it would be his insurance company taking the center to court not the man.

If he sustained catastrophic injuries, it waould be the Health and Saftey taking the case to court after a ful investigation.

As the Judge states: the center had a duty to point out that their mats would not save him in event of a fall. They either felt that they didn't have a responsibility of faiuled to prove that they had pointed that out. That's why he only awarded 25% of the blame to them. The other 75% was due to his stupidity. He could have been awarded 4 times as much compenstation. He basically lost the case!

In reply to mike swann:


I kid you not, I saw that on a packet of choc-coated nuts recently. I despair.

In reply to TimR:

But how could anyone conceivably be so stupid as to imagine that a mat could prevent them from being paralysed if they fell awkwardly with their weight on their neck and broke it? I can't see how it can be sensible to impose a duty on people to point out something that any adult already knows. They're mats FFS. Not science-fiction anti-gravity devices.

What conceivable purpose does such a law serve? Why on earth does it benefit society if climbing walls display notices saying 'warning; if you fall awkwardly you may hurt or kill yourself'?? Hand on heart, does any of us know anyone who both (a) couldn't have worked that out for themselves and (b) if so warned would refrain from climbing or climb differently?!

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

50% of people have below average intelligence.

In reply to TimR:

Sure, but personally I've never met anyone THAT stupid. It's like requiring kettle manufacturers to warn customers that boiling water is hot.

If you play football, you may break your leg. Do football suppliers need to warn people of this?

Something that always puzzles me about these warning cases is this; presumably it's necessary to show that if the warning had been given the accident would have been prevented. The defendant isn't liable simply because he was negligent; his negligence has to have caused the accident, right? So presumably the claimant has to give evidence that if only, if only, there had been a notice saying that if you fall upside down you may get hurt, that would have been the crucial factor that prevented him making an arse of himself? That's tough evidence to believe, frankly. I'd be interested to see what the judge had to say about that.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

No its far simpler than that. Negligence doesn't have to be proved. Since an accident happened then in the eyes of the law it was the provider ofthe service who was to blame. Full stop. This is the only area of the law where the defendent (climbing centre) has to prove innocence, rather than the prosecution (climber) has to prove guilt. If the Centre cannot prove they are innocent then they must be guilty.

These are the same laws that stop employers from making employees do dangerous things. Hence they are heavily weighted on the side of theinjured party. Our Grandfathers and the unions fought very hard in 1974 to get these laws passed.

It doesn't apply to crags, because no one is paying the crag owner to provide a safe environment.

In reply to TimR:

Quite irrelivant, but isn't it "Innocent until proven guilty" rather than "Guilty until proven innocent"?

Personnally I think john is right, any adult knows if he falls on his head then there may be an injury. Fluffy cushions or not. Just a case of him trying to pay his bills he can't pay himself I presume. Can't blame him for trying.

In reply to TimR:

Why so? Are you saying these cases are based on some statute rather than the law of negligence as such?

jcm

In reply to TimR:
Ignorance / stupidity is not a valid excuse.

It’s climbing FFS, All you can really do is try to be aware of the risks, and minimise them. If you are too stupid to recognise them or wish to ignore them then you have no right to complain.

If you participate in anything from crossing the road to a dangerous sport you should accept the risk’s, if you are not prepared to do so then go and sit in front of the TV and wait to die after leading a boring miserable non eventful life.

If a product is faulty or some 3rd group introduces further risks you have a case but If you are just stupid then it goes back to survival of the fittest.

In reply to Jamesclimb:

To be fair TimR is trying to explain the law as it is rather than say what he thinks it should be. I doubt if a single climber thinks this kind of decision is right.

I suppose 1974 was the Health and Safety at Work Act, was it? In my ignorance I had supposed that extended only to providing a safe system of work for employees. Perhaps it covers customers also in some way.

There still must have to be SOME causal link though. It wouldn't have been enough to show that the centre had some defective ropes elsewhere which they should have checked and hadn't but you weren't using. Surely if the claimant is cross-examined and says (as is presumably the true position) that no notice would have made a blind bit of difference, then that's the end of it, is it not?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I was under the impression that unless the product(s) were proven to be faulty correct instructions for user were not given which would also have to be proven then it was no fault other than the injured person.
Don’t users of walls have to sign a disclaimer that they are not stupid and know what they are doing

The law is an ass.

In reply to Jamesclimb:

They do, but as is well known, a contractual disclaimer of liability cannot exclude liability for personal injury caused by negligence. The 'disclaimers' therefore merely go towards discharging the duty of care. All the centre is hoping to achieve by getting people to sign them is that the centre is entitled to assume all its users are experienced climbers. To judge from this case they don't seem to work.

As to the law being an ass, I am with you, and I'm a lawyer, so I know.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yes you should make clear that signing a peice of paper only "goes towards" discharging the duty of care. In the event of an accident this is even worse because in asking someone to sign something you are actually saying that you know what they are about to do is dangerous but you are not going to stop them. I will reitterate that in the eyes of law signing something only means you where at certain place at a certain time. It would stil have to be proved that you understood what you were signing.

As I say in my previous post this IS the only law that exists in UK law where you are guilty until proven innocent. That surprised me a lot when I found that out.

Don't forget that the center were proved not to be fully at blame for the guys accident. They were just shown to not have explained that the mats wouldn't save him everytime. All we know is that he carried out a foolhardy move that meant he fell awkwardly.

In reply to TimR:

>They were just shown to not have explained that the mats wouldn't save him everytime.

Indeed. And that's what amazing everyone, that a court could deem such a fatuous step useful.

jcm

In reply to El Cap:

When we were kids my sister fell out of a tree and broke her arm. Should parents have sued council on whose land tree stood? Should all trees have a warning sign beside them? Maybe we should cut all trees down to 3ft in case anyone tries to climb one. Not sure this would help CO2 problem though...small trees don't have many leaves.

Don't see how climbing walls can have a member of staff watching every user....and would they take any notice if staff asked them to stop unsafe practices? Suspect as this was a jump it would have happened before anyone could shout a warning anyway.

It is time adults took responsibilty for there own actions and stopped looking for people to sue everytime something goes wrong.

In reply to Jamesclimb:

surely the counter-argument is that you can only accept risks if you understand them, and so explicit statements that major injuries can still occur from falls despite the matting would be needed if you're not going to assume that all your customers have a certain level of intelligence (which you cant unless you want intelligence testing when you join a climbing centre)...

In reply to cas smerdon:

Hello me again, sorry.

Did your sister pay the council to climb 'their' tree?

In reply to TimR:

Well we paid council tax and part of that goes to maitaining trees and mowing grass under them.

Don't see how paying to get into a climbing wall covers you insurance wise for any silly things you may attempt whist there. If mats were proven faulty would be different.

In reply to TimR:

Tim, as you seem to know more about the law on this than anyone else — does 'normal practice' not have anything to do with it? I don't think it's common for walls to warn users that the matting can't always protect against injury... presumably because that's obvious, and you don't warn about obvious dangers ... doesn't that have any bearing on the case? ie It'd make sense to me if the wall had shown lower standards in some way than the average wall, but that hasn't been said in the reports, from what I've read.

And will this ruling mean that other walls will feel they have to start issuing such verbals warnings? Or just putting up more notices? Or won't that happen?

And what about other obvious but unstated dangers?
Eg suppose someone fell down the steps and broke their neck... could the wall be sued because it hadn't informed the user that people can fall on stairs and that such falls can have serious consequences? Or are there some things that they accept that adults should/must know and so don't need to be warned against?

In reply to cas smerdon:

The council will have a document that says what they will provide. That does include maintaining trees and mowing grass. I haven't seen anything about providing trees and protection underneath to enable people to climb them safely. People often sue the council for tripping over paving slabs, but that is only possible because the council has undertaken to provide safe pavements for the purpose of walking on. This is different anyway because the council would be negligent by providing faulty equipment for walking on. In addition you have to prove that the council could reasonably ahve known about the pavement being faulty and had time to repair it.

But we digress its a bad example and not at all relevent to this case.

As soon as money changes hands you are entering into a legal contract. Certain things are implied even if no written contract is present.

That is why it is impossible to prosecute a land owner if you fall off their cliff when climbing. Unless you pay him in order to climb it. It's probably why landowners do not charge for climbing. Some will charge for car parking though.

In reply to TimR:



Surley the legal contract you have entered into is the bit of paper you signed to say you had read before using the wall which is then considered irrelevant when you have an accident.

In reply to gingerkate: Good questions Kate. All the walls I have been to have explicitly told me not to jump off the wall onto the crash mats as they are only there to offer limited protection. As I said earlier often you get a list of things to read when you first become a member. I expect most of us have been climbing so long at walls we have forgotten reading it. Maybe we should have to re-enroll every year? Maybe we do and just don't re-read it? I would hazzard a guess that this is the information that wasn't passed on.

I'm not a lawyer, I've just been on a very long and boring course covering this tedius stuff for work. The guy running it was a lawyer and the course over-ran every day because it kept drifting off topic in exactly the way that these threads do. Eg Well what if this happened? What about this case? I knew a bloke who knew a bloke who said that this was true... etc

In reply to cas smerdon: No the legal contract is entered into when you agree to climb. Signing only proves you were there when the dangers were supposed to have been explained to you. This is another misunderstood aspect of the law. Signing is only proof that you were at a certain place at a certain time.

In reply to TimR:

So what exactly is this legal contract? That all walls will provide a spotter to follow you around, point out if you are doing something dangerous (ie climbing) and catch you if you fall.

In reply to abarro81: There has to be a point when people should use commonsense and take responsibility for their actions. We all know that the fault lies with the incompetence of the injured individual.
He also has a tongue in his head and I presume capable of using it he could have asked if unsure about the risks.

It really pisses me of that people like this make stupid claims and that we live in a blame society where its all about how much money you can get in compensation.

The comment I got from some drunk “presumably gypos” when I got run over last year (hit and run not my fault) was “compo” I assume meaning compensation. I also think if it wasn’t for this group of individuals yelling compo and abuse at the car to blame they wouldn’t have done a runner and may have even stopped to apologise.

It’s a bloody disgrace that the first thing people think of when they are involved in an accident isn’t is everyone ok but its how much money can I make out of this, And their am I deluding myself that we live in a civilised society.

In reply to cas smerdon: That the wall will do everything reasonably practical to reduce the risks to you.
It's up to the courts to decide that they didn't after you have your accident.
Before you have your accident it's up to the wall to decide what this level is and hence why every wall approaches this differently.

In reply to TimR:

Oh I see. So you think that most walls are already protecting themselves against this sort of charge, by making us sign to say we've read their warning document, when we first use that wall? Right. But if you take a novice with you they don't always have to read and sign something I think .... so perhaps that's what happened in this case.... the more experienced climbers are supposed to inform the novice if they do unsafe stuff, but if they don't, and something goes wrong, then the wall can get blamed?

In reply to Jamesclimb:

Would you like to write the law that covers what is considered to be 'common sense'.

Is crossing the road common sense? Did you learn how to cross the road by trying it several times, getting run over a few times in the process and eventually work out the best way. Or did someone explain the green cross code to you.

In reply to gingerkate:


BINGO! But what about the experienced climbers. Did they get a dressing down in court? The article doesn't say. But did the 'inexperienced' climber pay them or the wall?

But even if you do read and sign it it doesn't prove that you understood it.

Oh, but signing only proves you were there? So they have to say all this stuff verbally to you to cover themselves?!

In reply to TimR: Like many children in the country I was informed how to cross the road.

But we also learn from asking and watching others. If I hadn’t been told I would have asked.
Why didn’t this individual ask about the risk’s if he wasn’t told them, It they then weren’t explained or if he was misinformed then he would have a case but otherwise he could have prevented the incident and therefore in my view is the one at fault.

In reply to gingerkate: Again its going to be down to the walls policy and the idividual conducting the induction.
One wall that I was inducted at, the girl asked me if I could tie into a harness. I said yes, showed her, she looked at me and asked if I had done this before. I smiled and said yes once or twice, she said OK I leave you to get on with it.

That's were the 'common sense' bit comes in.

In reply to TimR:

They've got a bit of a quandary then, haven't they, walls.... because if they leave it to the experienced climbers to inform a novice of dangers, they may not do so, or not adequately. And if they make a novice sign/hear stuff, they may be reasonably able to say they didn't understand it all properly.

I don't know, whenever I've taken a novice to a wall I've felt it my absolute duty to tell them what isn't safe... I can't see how it's the wall's fault if I promise to do that and then fail to. But no money so no contract? Hmmm.

In reply to TimR:
And thanks for explaining, Tim.

In reply to gingerkate:

As I say I'm no lawyer, and we are assuming that this is under Heath and Saftey law where the onus is for the wall to prove they were innocent, not the injured party to prove guilt. This might not be the case here of course, we just don't know.

So all that may have happened is that the wall failed to PROVE that they had told him. They may have, but lost the paper he signed or not got a signature or any other whole host of reasons.

The Judge must have heard lots of expert witness, examined all the data, probably visited the site. Knows lots more law. May have presided over cases like this before. All we have to go on is a newspaper report

In reply to Jamesclimb: I agree it's his fault but my point was the same as TimR said - how do you set a law determining common sense and being clever enough to think about stuff like this...

In reply to abarro81: Not read the whole thread, while the injured chap may have been doing something daft as far as I'm concerned if a climbing wall has mats below a bouldering wall I'd expect them to protect me from serious injury (i.e. not sprained ankle/wrist) from a 6' fall.

If their mats were crap then they deserve to get sued.

In reply to TimR:
Yes. We don't know enough about this case to make any sort of comment on the rightness or otherwise of the judgment from what I can see... even if we did properly understand the laws.

In reply to gingerkate:


Its interesting to see this in the widespread media.

My first (of many) proper good injuries was at the Sheffield YMCA wall (1989) when I snapped my ankle ligament on a wooden floor (no mats in them days)

Was I fool hardy trying the move?

No it was font 6b ish. (and I was tweaky then)

Did the YMCA not have proper duty of care?

......good question it seems....


si


PS: what bolox. Sorry for the chap - but really.

In reply to El Cap: poor sod .. i feel sorry for him but come on trying to blame the centre like that he would have known what he was getting into .
this is why climbing centres arnt the cheapest places to go because they have to cover themselfs incase some idiot falls and trys to do them ( not american is he ? )

In reply to pauldr: I think it's a joke, he's old enough and wise enough to appreciate that he was taking part in a dangerous activity, which many others much younger and with much less experience have participated safely and in more dangerous environments e.g. outdoors where risks are genetrally greater owing to uncontollable factors. But to go for compensation on something that was his fault, where he admits that he had little experience, is just stupid. If he felt that there was lack of supervision and assessment then he shouldn't have been climbing there, he's old enough to assess that risk himself, and by climbing he has accepted that risk and has no real grounds to blame anybody else, especially if there was adequete signage. Then again, to be put in a situation where you are looking at a wheelchair for the rest of your life, it is going to be hard to accept that it is mainly your own fault and want to blame someone else. I feel sorry for the guy but in the end it's his own decision to climb and therefore namely his fault.

In reply to El Cap: As I remember, this happened a few years ago. He wasn't climbing but jumping from the top of a slab, trying to catch a metal supporting beam. Caught it, couldn't hold the swing and cartwheeled into the (more than adequate) padding.

In reply to noctor:
Cheers, I've been trying to figure out how you end up falling on your neck from the attempted leap as described. Now it makes sense.

In reply to gingerkate: Its actually an easy mistake to make. One assumes that if one does not catch something then they would just fall off wheras in reality what happens is the momentum of the feet continue and the head goes back and down inverting to land badly. I broke my arm this way.

I would say its a matter of poor gymnastic awareness. If everyone had better gymnastic awareness then there would be less accidents. People can fall from heights if they know what they are doing. Dynamic and stupid things have to be done very carefully and with full awareness.

More signs and mats are one way of doing things however I would say that often its an impulsive recklessness that creates problems. We have all seen stupid films and in reality gymnastics is a difficult skill that presumably has to be learned gradually. I am not a gymnast myself but I can fall off boulder problems without mats etc.

In reply to El Cap:

Without getting into the legal issues, this is a sobering reminder that bouldering areas are in many respects the most dangerous part of any climbing wall, and statistically where most serious incidents occur.

Climbing walls such as orselves are sometimes criticised for not allowing people to boulder unless they can sign themslves up as being experienced climbers. The perception that bouldering is a fun, non-serious type of climbing that anyone can do without experience or fear of mishap is one that must be challenged.

In reply to Jamie B.:

Yes. I keep on thinking of the prevalence of 'mad fun sports' activities provided for kids at youth events. The stuff like wearing a velcro suit and throwing yourself at a velcroed-wall. Soloing up big squadgy towers above super-squadgy matting. Bungee jumping. All this stuff is presented as fun and safe, provided you follow instructions. And it is... both fun and safe.

But if you get a person who has grown up on diet of 'squadgy tower' type experiences, and they then apply the same mindset when climbing at a wall, they'll come acropper.

In reply to gingerkate:

Overheard at Leeds Wall a while ago, during a kids party thingy:

Mum on mobile phone; "Oh and they have this little wall they can play on with mats so they can't get hurt, they're running around on it now".

In reply to TimR:

>As I say I'm no lawyer, and we are assuming that this is under Heath and Saftey law where the onus is for the wall to prove they were innocent, not the injured party to prove guilt. This might not be the case here of course, we just don't know.

I rather thought you might not have any idea what you were talking about. Nor do I, of course, but at least I know I don't.

I can't be arsed to google for it, but my guess is that it's not called the Health and Safety At Work Act for nothing and has nothing to do with the present issue. I would also hazard a guess that the law of contract has nothing to do with it and that what you are looking for is the law of tort, and in particular negligence.

I wouldn't be as confident as you either that landowners who allow climbing can never be sued if something happens. The people who run Cheddar certainly don't think so.

jcm

In reply to noctor:

Exactly the same as I saw someone do in the Tremadoc barn once. He fractured his skull. Looking back on it, we should have sued Eric. We paid him to doss there, and he never told us we could get hurt if we fell on our heads on the floor.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Some goood points there, thanks. The Health and Safety at Work act does however extend to the public.

As a lawyer, you'll probably be able to tell us how these sort of cases work from a point of view of Tort. Which was what the OP's question was.

In reply to TimR:

I can't tell you much. As I said before this area of law seems to me to be out of control. IMHO it's high time the House of Lords considered the why-can't-the-claimant-look-where-the-hell-he's-going defence in these tripping and slipping cases, if it hasn't already. See that poor flower seller at Marylebone Station who's just been done for £1.5 million because some idiot fell over one of her petals.

As it happens I did briefly discuss this particular judgment last night at a barristers' social do with a group containing a QC and deputy High Court judge and a couple of exprienced barristers. They all thought the judge must have been mad (county court judges quite often are, of course). Of course what people say in social does and in court isn't always the same.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
As a matter of interest,when people bring particularly daft cases why cannot either the "defendant" or those (eg.the users of the defendant's facility) sue the litigant for costing them moeny etc ?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well, they can recover their costs of the case itself, of course. If you meant anything beyond that, then anything said in court or court proceedings is protected from libel/slander proceedings for obvious reasons, so they couldn't sue for the impact on their reputation or whatever.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

How much does your average judge actually know about climbing? I've always suspected that viewed dispassionately this activity of ours must all seem a bit absurd and possibly barely justifiable?

In reply to El Cap: ive climbed there and there a many very clearly visable signs in and around the climbing walls it is like many other bouldering walls around and as with many you obviously dont want to be doing dyno ect right at the top of it as theres potential for falling off awkwardly but this is common sense surly ?

Its difficult to fall and hurt oneself when on a rope 25m up but 3m up with no rope its easily possible.

This may bring a whole ton of shit down on me but consider the guy who hurt himself maybe thought that a crashmat under the bouldering wall meant that he could fall from the full height of the bouldering wall and the crash mat would cushion it adequately and nobody had told him any different.

When he realises different and hes sucking soup through his arse from a straw for the rest of his life and a lawyer says I can get you some money to try and make life easier for you then Im not suprised that he did what he did.

In reply to Fawksey:

The presence of matting does send mixed signals to the uninitiated; ie the matting is there to protect you but it actually doesn't protect you; bouldering is all about climbing at your limit but you should climb down under control, bouldering is freeform and accessible but only all-round climbers who can proffess a knowledge of ropework and knots can sign in, etc, etc

In reply to Jamie B.:

Yes, that sums it up. And... you push your limits because it's 'safer' but because you push your limits it's not actually safer at all. ie There are a lot more bouldering injuries than injuries for any other type of climbing aren't there? Well it seems to me there are. It's just that usually they are stuff people recover from ... thinking of friends, broken ankles and collarbones seem to abound ... rather than like this poor man.

I just feel so sorry for this guy ... he was only a novice, I see no reason he should know the score, either on the limited usefulness of matting or the climbing ethic of 'it's your own choice, if it goes wrong don't try and blame anyone else'. Sorry for the wall where it happened as well though, I'm not saying it's fair on them.

In reply to 'Rock'DJ:
People saying all he is doing is trying to get money for the future, why? he will get DLA at £450ish a month, Carers allowence for someone to look after him income support, housing and council tax benefit. Also if he had insurance that should pay for his morgage. Yes its crap that he has had a injury so bad but to government will give him more money than he needs. i know my girlfriend is in a wheelchair and we have done alright

In reply to El Cap: prehaps there is more than one issue here :

one is the scrupples of making a claim if you have an accident at a climbing wall

another is that realistically if there is potentially money to claimed then SOME people will try to claim it.

another is under what circumstances should money be paid out i.e. when is it really the climbing walls fault/negligence

it is sad to note that because of liability worries it is now difficult to do so many things. i work with homeless young adults and now the red tape and expenses involved in for example taking them to a climbing wall or out on other trips/activities means it happens a lot less. i know these things are put in place to protect people but the benefit that used to be gained from people doing them is a huge loss.

In reply to El Cap: I went on a patient safety training course and the risk of suffering an incident climbing was rated only slightly ahead of the NHS in terms of suffering a medical error whilst you are in hospital. Its true!

In reply to Fawksey:

Darwin.

Besides, he didn't fall the whole height of the wall; he fell on to his head because he was arsing about. How is the wall supposed to guess people are going to try to jump and catch beams and then fall on to their heads, and what on earth are they supposed to do about it?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Believe me, this is the sort of question that wall operators ask ourselves all the time, and do take very seriously indeed.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Darwin?

Im only playing devils advocate.

was it accepted in court that he was "arsing around"?

In reply to El Cap: The statement "Judge Foster said that to impose a duty of care on the operators to assess Mr Poppleton's abilities as a climber before allowing him to use the facilities and then provide supervision would not be "just, fair and reasonable to impose"."

was absolutely spot on. A good reason for walls not to do competency tests. Can you imagine "but they told me I was competent!"

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Occupier's Liability Act 1954 plus a contractual duty of care.

Claimant has to prove negligence - in other words failure by the defendant to take reasonable care to protect others coming onto his land or taking part in an activity provided by the defendant.

The harm suffered has to be 'reasonably foreseeable' in all the circumstances so if the Claimant is doing something outside the normal contemplation of the service offered under the contract liability is avoided or diminished, as appears to be the situation in this case.

What constitutes 'reasonable care' varies according to the circumstances, but it would certainly cover the adequacy of matting under a bouldering wall.

Newspaper reports almost always miss out the crucial elements of a case. I think it quite likely that the judge's finding was spot on - speaking as both a lawyer and a climber and having broken my ankle recently at a climbing centre falling from 5 feet as I was about to clip the first bolt.

I didn't even consider suing however since I felt there was no breach of duty of care and they looked after me brilliantly after the accident. A broken neck is very different though and leaves you with few choices - even if it was his own fault, which the judge appears to have recognised.

Disclaimer: The above is a general statement of the law, and shouldn't be relied upon by anyone reading this post as advice(!)

In reply to Philippa:

Should have added : would cover the adequacy of matting under a bouldering wall in the context of normal bouldering activity.

In reply to Philippa:

>Newspaper reports almost always miss out the crucial elements of a case.

Well that's the truth for sure. On the facts as presented to us - ie claimant arsing around breaks neck owing to fact that mats do not prevent Newton's Laws from applying, though, if you think the judge was spot on we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sounds like you'd probably have won on the basis that the centre should have warned you that the bolts don't protect you until you've clipped them.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

As I said - wouldn't have dreamt of trying!

I would like to know exactly what the evidence about the mats was - other people have commented that the centre was dirty and not very well run - that may have been material to the decision even if not clear from the newspaper report.

Don't think I can comment further though - I just thought it might be useful to set out the relevant legal principles.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: second time youve stated he was arseing around, did the court accept he was arseing around or is it your interpretation?

50% have less or equal median intelligence. The proportion below average (mean) isn't necessarily 50%...

In reply to Fawksey:

I'm basing myself on what someone using the wall stated higher up the thread. But frankly I don't see it makes much difference: it doesn't matter what you're doing; if you fall on to your head at the wrong angle and snap your neck, you can have as many mats as you like and it won't help. I just don't see that it can conceivably be the wall's place to point out the laws of medical physics in this way to grown men.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: I know Im being picky and its hard to legislate for people having a lack of common sense but if you turn it on its head (no pun intended) but say one goes down a 80 foot high almost vertical waterslide at a theme park and smash yourself at the bottom, lay there like a smashed starfish and say ooh my necks broken only to be told well what did you expect sailing over an 80 foot drop in a wee rubber dinghy?

There is a line to draw between whats obvious and whats not, obviousley the judge decided where this line was drawn and it wasnt where you or I would have thought.

In reply to El Cap:

What is reasonable? Is climbing a reasonable sport? Have you ever tried explaining to someone who never goes anywhere without their car, won't stay anywhere except in B&Bs or hotels and whose idea of sport is watching footie with a beer, what it is like to risk your life climbing a mountain and spending a night in a howling gale under canvas?

Is it reasonable to travel all the way to a small Greek island for you holiday and spend all day in bed and all night getting drunk in a nightclub full of English people, when you could easily do that in any English town?

People's ideas of reasonable are all different, thank god, or the crags and hills would be even more overrun.

And 50% of people ARE below average intelligence, I don't know what the statistical deviation from the norm is, or even how you'd measure it, but I've met people from the 100th percentile and people from the 1st percentile, (just read some of the posts here) and quite frankly some people need to be protected from themselves.

Wasn't this guy described as a novice? As opposed to the 'experienced' climbers he was with.

In reply to El Cap:



No shit sherlock.

In reply to Fawksey:

The difference between your example and the present one is that I would be using the facilities for the purpose they were intended for, not swallow-diving on to my head.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously: did he really go to these facilities so that he could swallow dive onto his head?

I was trying to have a serious discussion that might possibly explore some of the reasoning behind why a sane member of the judiciary would come to a conclusion that perplexes a great deal of people involved in climbing. Unfortunately you seem unable to answer anything without dumbing it down to the level of statement usually found on the front page of a tabloid newspaper.

im aware that one can be unlucky enough to dive into a swimming pool and break ones neck just by the angle one enters the water at, its then not difficult for me to assume that to land on ones head from 4 feet even with a crash mat might also break ones neck..... but it doesnt mean that everyone knows that.

It isnt beyond the realms of possibility that someone could look at a bouldering wall and think, no ropes needed nobody else wearing a helmet its ex amount of feet high and its got big crash mats that arent placed beneath any of the roped climbing areas, I can try the impossible here without getting hurt.

I dont believe the courts found that he was arseing around or that he went there for the purpose of doing a swallow dive onto his head or he would have been awarded nothing.