Forum menu
I wasn't sure whether to post this story, since I'm all too aware how it will probably end up.
But I thought it's quite relevant to many of us who use MTB trail centres, climbing walls and similar facilities.
I've read the comments on UKClimbing Forums, and it's like reading the comments on the Daily Mail website - I hope we can be a bit more objective here?
Basically, a woman who broke her ankle leaping five feet from a bouldering wall during a team-building exercise has won the right to compensation.
As usual, the media have focused on the fact she was a "high flying banking executive" (actually, I think she's an underwriter or something equally dull).
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9146616/The-5ft-leap-at-Craggy-Island-that-may-end-in-payout.html ]Article in Telegraph[/url]
It looks like Craggy Island's liability has arisen due to the procedures they did/didn't have in place re safety.
My opinion, for the record, is as follows 🙂 I think that you have to be missing a few brain cells to think that jumping 5 feet onto anything is unlikely to ever end in injury. BUT, as someone who uses indoor walls a lot, I can (to some extent) appreciate why a non-climber who has just spent all morning dangling at 40ft on the "big wall", might think that the bouldering area is a bit of a play area. It does feel relatively safe and small after you've been topping out for the first time ever at 40ft.
You would think common sense would have prevailed here (which it has to an extent, as the judge held her 1/3 liable for her injuries), but I do appreciate the need for centres to make clear to the lowest common denominator that they might get hurt if they jump off stuff.
I watched many experienced climbers bombing off problems at TCA on Sunday, but I doubt any would sue TCA if they were injured since they have accepted that it is risky. As is bouldering without a spotter for example.
I also have an issue with the fact that climbing (and more so with bouldering), is an "extreme" sport, and even to a 3 year old it's apparent that it carries a higher risk of injury than many other sports. Why have a team building day there? IMO it's a bit like taking them to Hamsterley and giving them all rented DH bikes for the day.
How far does a trail centre/climbing centre need to go in order to ensure you have fully understood the risks?
At a recent trip to the US, they wouldn't even let me near the wall until they had seen me competently put a harness on, tie in and belay.
[u]Disclaimer[/u]
Please don't go down the "burn all the lawyers" route. It's so Daily Mail and not a very well thought out response. The blame/claim culture really has nothing to do with 99.99% of the legal profession, it's something dreamt up by businessmen. By number, only a very small proportion of qualified lawyers are ambulance chasers, or indeed even involved in litigation.
If you do decide to go down that route, please remember that I spend 60+ hours a week helping to build the schools your children attend, the hospitals that you rely on in times of need and the transport infrastructure that got you to work today. 😉
*awaits the first "burn all lawyers" response* 🙂
She liked running, running what? Water?
Burn all climbers, waste of space sport if you ask me.
burn all lawyers.
If you do decide to go down that route, please remember that I spend 60+ hours a week helping to build the schools your children attend, the hospitals that you rely on in times of need and the transport infrastructure that got you to work today.
ooo hark at Mother bleedin' Theresa.
*awaits the first "burn all lawyers" response"*
If you'd all be so good as to start on the other members of the legal professions first (ideally barristers, then notaries before moving onto us solicitors, eh?). I'd be most grateful.... EDIT - being polite, I'll be glad to be burned after you've been through the Scottish legal system first....
Your summary seems to indicate that there has been a normal and sound legal judgement here.
It's not possible to exclude liability for injury or death under law, but if you've done every reasonable (in the circumstances) to mitigate the risk, then you've a much lower chance of being held liable.
Anyway, this is what insurance is for.
Seen a few team building exercise turned into litigation nightmare* lately, I think anywhere offering team building services should be health and safety-ed up to the eyeballs. Specially anyone catering to "high flying exec" mobs who will all have their own lawyers on speed dial
*possibly
Incredible story in the true sense of the word.
Ruling Craggy Island two-thirds responsible for the accident, Judge Curran told the court: "They were in breach of their own procedures and standards in failing to brief or warn her properly about jumping onto the crash mat.
FFS - have we lost common sense. So if I fall off my bike at a trail centre or take a jump incorrectly - is that my fault or should the trail centre have given me extended coaching and advice on how to dismount or land a jump?
"They failed to go through any drill with her as to the appropriate way to climb down."
She jumped?
However, the judge said Ms Pinchbeck had to bear one-third responsibility for her injuries because "she could have attempted to climb down or ask for help".
So the judge got it a third right.
A clearly emotional Ms Pinchbeck broke down in tears as she left court.
Crocodile tears.
What a waste of time and money.
ooo hark at Mother bleedin' Theresa.
Nah, it just grinds my gears a bit when people seem to think that the entire legal profession consists of criminal lawyers who keep paedos out of prison on "technicalities" and slimey ambulance chasers. It doesn't. Some of us actually take a bit of pride in what we do, and it's not all self serving 😉
Your summary seems to indicate that there has been a normal and sound legal judgement here.
I'm quite keen to have a look at the judgment, to work out what type of chap was sitting. Might tell us a lot. Could be quite easy to work out if he is a skiier/cyclist/hill walker etc, or a total fruit loop.
If you do decide to go down that route, please remember that I spend 60+ hours a week helping to build the schools your children attend, the hospitals that you rely on in times of need and the transport infrastructure that got you to work today
...and at the last minute you snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
In cases like this I really wish someone would just say it like it is - "you're supposed to be an intelligent adult, what on earth made you think jumping off a 5-foot climbing wall was a sensible idea? ... sorry, but it's your own fault you big twit"
I understand the need to be accountable/liable for the safety of the public, but there needs to be some kind of exemption clause for stupid people.
...and at the last minute you snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
You misquoted me. I had this at the end: 😉
🙂
My local sports centre, Kelsey Kerridge, had one of the first indoor climbing / bouldering walls in the UK (1970s I think). It only got mats about 4 years ago. Before you just jumped / fell off onto a solid concrete floor!
Please don't go down the "burn all the lawyers" route
The problem is that I live in a world where I have to accept there are people out there that don't understand the concept of "personal responsibility" or "accident". As you yourself pointed out, even a 3 year old understands that jumping off something high might well hurt. What I really struggle to comprehend is a legal system that upholds claims like this. Maybe it's not the fault of the lawyers who are just representing a client, but someone in the justice system needs to have some balls to say "no, don't be silly, it's your own stupid fault".
In this case there must be some other part of this story I'm not privy to, because I'm still shocked that it's true.
I don't blame the lawyers I blame the woman that has managed to get to the age of 44 without any understanding of risk assessment or common sense.
People manage to get fractures twisting an ankle stepping off the kerb surely a high flier such as herself would have realised that you'd be better off down climbing and stepping off and if you're going to jump from 5 foot up even onto crash mats it makes sense to think a bit about the landing.
At a recent trip to the US, they wouldn't even let me near the wall until they had seen me competently put a harness on, tie in and belay.
They do that here too don't they, certainly they do it at Brunel and the Westway, at the Westway you have to do a little written test.
I fell horizontally from the last hold at the top of that wall and bounced with no ill consequence. I can see how injury can be sustained, but this doesn't stack up.
There are more injuries from bouldering walls than roped in indoor centres due to altered perceptions of risk, with ankle tweaks being up there. This should always be explained with proper spotting and falling advice given. Knowing some of the Craggy staff, I struggle to imagine they wouldn't do this. It's a very professional centre!
1. She turned as she jumped, not fell off.
2. Who was spotting her? You don't let a [s]mumsy lawyer[/s] beginner climb without support.
3. "she could have attempted to climb down or ask for help". Climbing down is recommended at any bouldering wall, if you fall there should be the option of a spotter. If you jump, it's your own doing.
4. Her chins don't suggest she is a runner! I have no beef with the size a person is, I understand it's complex but it's a touch fresh to argue that running is one of her favourite activities 😐
My local sports centre, Kelsey Kerridge, had one of the first indoor climbing / bouldering walls in the UK (1970s I think). It only got mats about 4 years ago. Before you just jumped / fell off onto a solid concrete floor!
This is a massively valid point IMO. Mats generally give a false sense of security. If there had been no mats, her opinion of the drop would have undoubtedly been different. So it was her "assuming" that the mats would break her fall which was incorrect. A common assumption though to be fair.
teamhurtmore - Member
FFS - have we lost common sense. So if I fall off my bike at a trail centre or take a jump incorrectly - is that my fault or should the trail centre have given me extended coaching and advice on how to dismount or land a jump?
The difference is that it is reasonable to expect that jumping onto a soft safety mat will be safe.
[img] 
[/img]
In cases like this I really wish someone would just say it like it is - "you're supposed to be an intelligent adult, what on earth made you think jumping off a 5-foot climbing wall was a sensible idea? ... sorry, but it's your own fault you big twit"I understand the need to be accountable/liable for the safety of the public, but there needs to be some kind of exemption clause for stupid people.
I wholly agree with this.
A clearly emotional Ms Pinchbeck broke down in tears as she left court.
What? Because she broke a ******* ankle? Someone needs to have a firm word with her.
Retro, If you trip on a kurb, you can rupture ligaments/break a bone etc. Does the council need to check before I leave my house every morning? Get a grip - accidents happen. Jumping onto anything from 5' has risks.
If she has a case, its against her employer (and herself for being stupid/unlucky).
The judges etc make the rulings, if they applied common sense rather than the letter of the law then the ambulance chasers we all dislike so much wouldn't win and would therefore go away.
This is another case where common sense should have prevailed - if it had she wouldn't have jumped off the wall in the first place!
The difference is that it is reasonable to expect that jumping onto a soft safety mat will be safe.
I think this is the kind of attitude that gets us debating these things in the first place. Climbing walls should have a responsibility to [i]reduce[/i] risk, not eliminate it.
In cases like this I really wish someone would just say it like it is - "you're supposed to be an intelligent adult, what on earth made you think jumping off a 5-foot climbing wall was a sensible idea? ... sorry, but it's your own fault you big twit"I understand the need to be accountable/liable for the safety of the public, but there needs to be some kind of exemption clause for stupid people.
This.
I went to the new wall at Bingley. They asked if we were competent climbers and to prove it we had to look at some photos of harnesses, tying on and belaying and show which were right and wrong.
These were fine and it made sense as a way of demonstrating competence. The only problem was that we didn't take harnesses and were just going bouldering!
Seems reasonable to me. I guess she wouldn't normally jump off a 5ft wall, but thought it would be ok due to the crash mats below. She just wasn't aware they weren't designed for jumping down onto as they hadn't explained it.
Craggy Island stopped a very experienced climbing mate of mine (25years+) because he failed their intro test. Made me wonder what risks I (and his son) was (were) taking climbing with him in the past. He was livid that they wouldn't let him climb!!! 😉
Sounds like the judge needs to get a grip although without knowing the full details we can't make a definitive judgement. Surprisingly few of these cases do end up with the claimant winning, trouble is the fear (and hassle even if you win) of litigation causes massive issues.
Her chins don't suggest she is a runner!
There are photos of me where I'm totally chintastic, but mountain biking is one of my favourite hobbies. She didn't say she was a good runner! 😀
But yeah, if it had been me, I would have been annoyed with myself rather than anyone else. It sounds like she ignored the instructors - given the people I know who work at things like Go Ape, etc, they always give the full safety routine, even if you say you've done it before, so I believe them when they say they told her not to jump. I imagine she thought, "four foot, crash mat, it'll be fine" and got careless.
She just wasn't aware they weren't designed for jumping down onto as they hadn't explained it.
The most sensible solution then would be for her to win the case but lose her job. Clearly has no understanding about risk. Oh, she worked for HBOS - that figures!!
Reading the report on that, it seems she won (partially) because the judge accepts her claim that she wasn't briefed for bouldering, in contravention with the written procedures. So it's a procedural thing. The thing is, the instructors dispute her version and say she was briefed. Anybody want to bet that she was actually briefed, but wasn't paying attention?
The question is, how did the judge determine that her story was correct (on balance of probabilities)?
The judges etc make the rulings, if they applied common sense rather than the letter of the law then the ambulance chasers we all dislike so much wouldn't win and would therefore go away.
Just to add a bit of clarity on this point, judges have somewhat limited discretion. The "letter of the law" is produced, in effect, by a democratic procress. Judicial decisions which stray massively from the established law are often frowned upon.
The other problem, and a more subtle one, is that the English legal system is an extemely valuable commodity. The relative certainty our legal system produces means that it is attractive as a choice of jurisdiction. That means that no one really wants to rock the boat. Loose cannon and free thinking judges are not very common. For every judge who makes a great, common sense judgment, you would have 10 more who make stupid ones.
I'm referring to the lower courts here btw.
The difference is that it is reasonable to expect that jumping onto a soft safety mat will be safe
Will be [b]safer[/b], but certainly not explicitly safe.
Someone I know broke an ankle tripping off a kerb. It wasn't anything near 5-foot high, and they didn't jump off it. They've also never been given specific 'stepping off a kerb' training, so generally get by using something called 'common sense'. Neither did they go blubbing to anyone for compensation.
Accidents can still happen.
But if someone's got insurance, suddenly there's the chance of making a few quid.
The judges etc make the rulings, if they applied common sense rather than the letter of the law then the ambulance chasers we all dislike so much wouldn't win and would therefore go away.
Amazingly, you'll find that judges are actually highly intelligent people, with both an extraordinary grasp of "the law" (and negiligence is hardly complex stuff) and also a frightening amount of common sense - they see through bullshit faster than anyone else.
It's evident that the court found sufficient fault with the centre that it awarded 2/3 liability. It also found sufficient fault with the claimant, who was found 1/3 liable. It's not unusual for claimants to find themselves 100% liable for their own actions.
The biggest crying shame is that, in spite of this being a well established area of law, apparently sensible IT help desk managers on the internet struggle to comprehend that experts may actually know what they're talking about....
Mrs Toast - Go Ape is an interesting analogy. So you have the safety briefing and given excellent equipment. But there is still considerable personal risk of not clipping in correctly. Are GA responsible for this if it is complete stupidity? On one occassion, I was taking a load of kids and had been very thorough in ensuring that they were safe. After the last one had left the platform, I was about to set off but the climber in me made me have one last check of krabs etc - thank goodness, as I hadn't clipped in correctly. Complete stupidity on my behalf (originally) fortunately coupled with a climbers instinct - who would have been responsible if I had fallen off? Craagy Island hadn't warned me that supervising kids (especially other people's) may distract your from your own safety??????
The bouldering walls I've been to has massive signs telling you to down climb, not walk underneath climbers etc, on top of the whole common sense thing, disclaimer when signing up and being told what to do by the instructors, that 'given no briefing' is clearly a lie.
Burn the lawyers and judges, but this profiteering arse hole of a woman should be burnt hottest of all.
The question is, how did the judge determine that her story was correct (on balance of probabilities)?
Counsel cross examine the witnesses. Judge listens. Judge asks his/her own questions. Judge makes decision (on balance of probabilities).
That said, I've never been to a court during my professional career.
ourmaninthenorth - MemberAmazingly, you'll find that [s]judges[/s] medics are actually highly intelligent people, with both an extraordinary grasp of "the law" (and negiligence is hardly complex stuff) and also a frightening amount of common sense - they see through bullshit faster than anyone else.
The biggest crying shame is that, in spite of this being a well established area of [s]law[/s]medical practice, apparently sensible IT help desk managers on the internet struggle to comprehend that experts may actually know what they're talking about....
Glad you believe all that!! What happened to questioning and persistance from your other thread? 😉
Burn the lawyers and judges, but this profiteering arse hole of a woman should be burnt hottest of all.
Oh come on mate, this is a cycling forum, not the Daily Mail.
😐
Glad you believe all that!! What happened to questioning and persistance from your other thread?
Touché.
But, since I'm a lawyer, I'm also intelligent enough to take responsibility for my own healthcare to help the experts do the best job they can.
Haha, you know it's true though!
ourmaninthenorth - Member
Glad you believe all that!! What happened to questioning and persistance from your other thread?
Touché.But, since I'm a lawyer, I'm also intelligent enough to take responsibility for my own healthcare to help the experts do the best job they can.
..and to know that other lawyers can/do make mistakes!! 😉
Counsel cross examine the witnesses. Judge listens. Judge asks his/her own questions. Judge makes decision (on balance of probabilities).
In other words, being a high flying professional, she was more credible to the judge than the scummy climbing instructor?
..and to know that other lawyers can/do make mistakes!!
Absolutely 🙂
I only sleep comfortably with a copy of my firm's PI insurance cover under my pillow 😉
what a tart...
experts may actually know what they're talking about....
They might "know what they're talking about", but that doesn't mean that what they're talking about is actually correct.
I've heard people talk very 'expertly' about Creationism, but apparently other 'experts' say that's not real. or some such.