[Closed] Woman wins compensation for jumping off bouldering wall

She should have read the sign they've put up that says climb down, or risk hurting yourself.
Yet again, one muppet hurts themselves, sues, and f.cks it for the rest of us.

Can't you clever lawyers get us a proper copy of the court shizzle, so we (as actual INTERNET EXPERTS) can properly make up our minds ?

until then, IMO:

I can't envisage a scenario where jumping 5 feet onto anything, even water, could be hazard-free and I'm not even a high-flying bank exec 🙄

Still, I guess the centre is lucky - she could've shoved her fingers into a deep-fat fryer or plug socket after not being specifically told to stay away

I can't envisage a scenario where jumping 5 feet onto anything, even water, could be hazard-free

Neither could she I expect, but seeing as the climbing centre have insurance then why not try and make a few quid out of it ...

Cynical? Moi? 😉

teamhurtmore - Member
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).

Read my post again - your point about the kerb is completely unrelated as there is no implication of safety there.

Would the woman have jumped off the wall if the floor had been concrete? Unlikely. She made a reasoned decision, it was not an accident, she did not slip - she chose to jump off based on the expectation she would be safe due to the presence of the soft mat.

As an aside, is it just me who's getting sick of seeing 'get a grip' on here? Get a grip of your eyeballs and point them at the screen, then get a grip of your fingers and prevent them typing a reply until you've got a grip of what you're replying to. JTFC. 😀

Interesting one this, it'd passed me by. Thanks for posting.

I think the crux of it is whether the wall staff were negligent; if not, there's no case.

I don't know the wall in question, but every wall I've ever been to has a) not allowed you to climb without first either demonstrating competence or having some sort of supervision, and b) asks you to sign a waiver along the lines of "climbing is a dangerous sport and I accept responsibility for accidents relating to my own incompetence."

Without knowing details it's hard to speculate. Someone, presumably, accepted responsibility for her as a novice climber. Was that a climber in the group, or wall staff? Were they negligent in looking after her properly?

A five foot fall from a bouldering wall onto big thick crashmats isn't all that big a deal; I've routinely jumped / fallen off that sort of stuff, but then, I try not to land like a dropped bag of spanners. Perhaps she saw the regulars doing it and tried it herself, with the innate athletic ability of a tin of tomato soup. Who knows.

Ms Pinchbeck said she and her colleagues received first-class supervision from the centre's instructors while tackling the high-level climbing wall, but claimed she was given no proper "briefing" about the potential hazards of the bouldering wall.

So why did she go anywhere near it then? "Ooh, a chainsaw, no-one's told me not to try to stop it with my tongue..."

Retro - apologies about the get a grip comment. Unnecessary. It was a general comment borne of frustration about the stupidity of these events. I actually inserted your name afterwards as an edit because I was too lazy to copy/quote your comments and others had posted in the meantime. It doesn't read well, I accept, but not intended to be rude (sorry!).

Having said that, I still disagree 😉 A kerb makes a clear distinction between an area that is safe(r) to walk and one that isn't. I assume that the council have put it in the right place and maintain in correctly. if I then trip over it (even when not warned directly every time I leave my house) then it is my fault, noone else's.

Can't you clever lawyers get us a proper copy of the court shizzle

They don't report this sort of sh-t. It's just a minor PI claim that's got the frothers frothing.

Now, recent cases on waiver and repudiatory breach of contract are rather more interesting and definitely worth reporting....

OMITN (a layer and proud of it!) 😉

teamhurtmore - Member

Retro - apologies about the get a grip comment. Unnecessary. It was a general comment borne of frustration about the stupidity of these events. I actually inserted your name afterwards as an edit because I was too lazy to copy/quote your comments and others had posted in the meantime. It doesn't read well, I accept, but not intended to be rude (sorry!).

Having said that, I still disagree A kerb makes a clear distinction between an area that is safe(r) to walk and one that isn't. I assume that the council have put it in the right place and maintain in correctly. if I then trip over it (even when not warned directly every time I leave my house) then it is my fault, noone else's.

No worries 😉 My reply probably didn't read too kindly either, so apologies for that.

Regarding the kerb, if it were simply tripping on a kerb that is visibly wonky I would agree with you. But it's more akin IMHO to a kerbstone which looked safe to stand on but in fact was not cemented in and therefore unstable. Or maybe a drain cover which has corroded underneath. Looks safe to stand on but gives way when you do so.

Not interesting in the bitching

This ruling is a very clear lesson to all businesses really. If you say in your procedures that you are going to do something, MAKE SURE YOU DO IT.

There are some comments above about whether staff were negligent, the answer is yes they were.

If you have a policy that identifies a potential hazard and commits to warning clients about it then you can expect to get sued if you don't follow it and someone gets hurt. Its easy to dress this up as something else and make irelevant ccomparisions, but the bottom line is very straightforward.

But it's more akin IMHO to a kerbstone which looked safe to stand on but in fact was not cemented in and therefore unstable. Or maybe a drain cover which has corroded underneath. Looks safe to stand on

It's not really - you could jump down five feet onto a soft mat 10,000 times and you would only break your ankle once (complete guess obviously). It's not inherently unsafe, she was just unlucky.

If you have a policy that identifies a potential hazard and commits to warning clients about it then you can expect to get sued if you don't follow it and someone gets hurt.

They say they did follow it though - seems to be her word against theirs but hers has been more believed. And I bet there are also safety notices/warning signs all over the shop. There has been in every climbing wall I've been to.

grum +1

(I have climbed at CI and was impressed with their safety advice. Then went out on the wall and watch numpties belaying incorrectly, climbing dangerously etc. Whose fault is that if someone who has gone thru safety checks then "forgets'' about how to use a simple belay plate correctly?)

I climb three times a week at craggy and see the groups being led by the instructors - never seen anything untoward.

In any event there is a great big BMC poster next to the bouldering area saying 'climb down' etc. Also there are laminated posters attached to the mats themselves all over the area saying 'climb down don't jump'. I fail to see how you could not see them.

I know if I jump from the top of the bouldering wall I'm careful to land properly, I presume she did something silly like turn in the air rather than soaking the impact up in her legs.

EDIT: Also the test they do at Craggy to decide if you can climb by unsupervised is much harder than any other one i've seen (i.e. actually tie the knot and demonstrate a dynamic belay rather than just point at a picture or sign a form to say you can)

In any event there is a great big BMC poster next to the bouldering area saying 'climb down' etc. Also there are laminated posters attached to the mats themselves all over the area saying 'climb down don't jump'. I fail to see how you could not see them.

if this is indeed true, I don't see how not instructing her to do the same is tantamount to negligence. I suspect CI need a better lawyer!

There are some comments above about whether staff were negligent, the answer is yes they were.

How do you know that?

How do you know that?

if this is indeed true, I don't see how not instructing her to do the same is tantamount to negligence. I suspect CI need a better lawyer!

Yeah - suspect they should have settled.

They say they did follow it though - seems to be her word against theirs but hers has been more believed. And I bet there are also safety notices/warning signs all over the shop. There has been in every climbing wall I've been to.

I stand by my earlier comment. This woman is profiteering and should be set on fire.

She works in the insurance business FFS and knows full well how the system works and is milking it hard.

It's us who will end up paying for morons like her as walls increase entry fees to cover their insurance

It's us who will end up paying for morons like her as walls increase entry fees to cover their insurance

Actually, I think someone from CI posted on UKclimbing forums that their insurance contributions (for EVERYTHING, even buildings insurance) was only around 1% of operating costs.

So I doubt that it's going to have any effect on entry fees at all.

What might happen though, is that we won't be able to move without walking past a "DANGER" sign on every route/problem etc.

This is one of those non-cases where it's nothing really to do with the activity itself, but more a case of a company not following it's own procedures. This sort of thing seems to happen over and over again...

Anyway, I'm more aggrieved by the fact that the OP thinks climbing is an 'extreme' sport! While certain elements of climbing are indeed quite dangerous, climbing per-se is no more dangerous, and probably a great deal less dangerous, than a great number of other more 'normal' sports, unless you think that rugby or football are 'extreme' sports that is!

Strangely enough, the one thing that probably has made climbing more dangerous over the years is the introduction of 'safe' places to climb like climbing walls... but then that's another argument altogether!

The whole thing depends on the circumstances under which she wandered into the bouldering area and started climbing. Her argument (which the judge chose to believe) is that she was properly inducted and supervised on the roped climbing area, but not for the bouldering area.

Even a well-matted bouldering area should mean induction and some light supervision for a complete novice. The simple act of pointing out that it is not a risk-free activity, and that even a modest but awkward fall onto mats can increase the chances of injury would have saved Craggy a lot of headaches.

It's perfectly normal to fall unexpectedly and awkwardly from that height, and injuries are not that rare. This woman was able to make a argument that a casual approach to induction left her with a sense that this was more akin to a soft play area for kids than somewhere you can actually knack yourself.

Can't see that a few more danger signs would have made any difference, there a presumably loads of them all over as at every climbing wall.

Don't know what the solution is. It would be sad if walls stopped providing team building, beginner sessions or kids parties due to fear of being sued.

I struggle with long sentences.
I was down our local bouldering/climbing wall. There's a ledge about 4metres up which marks the end of the bouldering bit. Bunch of annoying kids were climbing up then jumping off onto the mats. Joked with a mate that one of them's going to snap something soon. 10 mins later one jumps off followed by much screaming as he fractures his ankle/leg/foot.
Wasn't worth getting the staff as his screaming soon brought them over.
What was iritating though was the little whinger wouldn't even drag himself away from the wall. Had to wait 30 mins for the paramedics to stick him on a stretcher and cart him off, before we could get back on the boulder problem.

This woman was able to make a argument that a casual approach to induction left her with a sense that this was more akin to a [b]soft play area for kids[/b] than somewhere you can actually knack yourself.

if that's true, I stand by: The most sensible solution then would be for her to win the case but lose her job. Clearly has no understanding about risk.

She works in the insurance business FFS and knows full well how the system works and is milking it hard.

That's my impression. She knew what the risks were - you can feel how much give the mat has when you walk on it. No way you'd think it was impossible to hurt yourself if you landed awkwardly.

She messed up, hurt herself, had a good think about what had happended to see if there were any grounds for a case and decided that:

Given that she was on a supervised visit, it was reasonable to assume all dangers would be run through by the supervisor (and had been up until that point), and that there was no onus on her to read all the signs.

There was information on the signs about dangers of uncontrolled falls - thus it was worth being told about, but she hadn't been told about them.

This nonsense about running being her favourite passtime too, clearly fabricated for the case.

I'd be surprised that chuffer could run a single lap of a McDonalds car park

My observation is that large swathes of the general public are spectacularly bad at assessing risk in a variety of situations, everyday and otherwise.

Unfortunately for places such as climbing walls this means you have to spend time spelling it out to them in no uncertain terms.

I struggle with long sentences.
I was down our local bouldering/climbing wall. There's a ledge about 4metres up which marks the end of the bouldering bit. Bunch of annoying kids were climbing up then jumping off onto the mats. Joked with a mate that one of them's going to snap something soon. 10 mins later one jumps off followed by much screaming as he fractures his ankle/leg/foot.
Wasn't worth getting the staff as his screaming soon brought them over.
What was iritating though was the little whinger wouldn't even drag himself away from the wall. Had to wait 30 mins for the paramedics to stick him on a stretcher and cart him off, before we could get back on the boulder problem.

Wow. 😕

You seem like a lovely guy.

I know fat people who are really into running - but still beginners.

Anyway - do we know if she decided to jump down for a laugh, or did she find herself stuck with fading strength and not enough skill to climb down?

Anyway, I'm more aggrieved by the fact that the OP thinks climbing is an 'extreme' sport!

I used these things " " for a reason. It was to demonstrate the relative/comparitive danger of the activity chosen for a team building exercise compared to doing something else and taking into account the experience of the person.

I climb twice a week indoors for fun and strength training, and try to get up north pretty much every weekend for proper climbing (both winter and summer). How extreme climbing is is completely relative to the climber. I crap my pants on traverses in winter on The Ben, [url= http://www.alpineexposures.com/blogs/chamonix-conditions/5864713-manitua-grandes-jorasses-n-face ]THESE[/url] guys quite clearly would not. The woman who fell was a complete novice and might never have climbed up anything other than her stairs. In that case, climbing a 40ft wall (even if roped) or bouldering at 12ft could be considered "extreme" to her. It's all relative and completely subjective.

There is a fairly high chance of injury (whether a blister or broken neck) to a novice climber who is bouldering (certainly more so than top roping). Being exeperienced and climbing within your grade certainly takes out most of the "extreme" side of the sport, but for novices surely the danger of a fall is amplified (i.e. they don't know how to fall properly, which is clearly apparent in the case of this woman).

I don't consider tanking it down Inners on a Sunday afternoon to be "extreme", but it probably is to most who don't ride.

There is some good info re the comparative risks of bouldering in [url= http://www.climbing.com.au/Who%20gets%20injured%20in%20the%20gym.pdf ]HERE[/url].

They say they did follow it though - seems to be her word against theirs but hers has been more believed. And I bet there are also safety notices/warning signs all over the shop. There has been in every climbing wall I've been to.

yeah lovely. What about people with literacy problems? Or people for whom English isn't their native language? Or for people who for whatever reason don't read them? Putting up warning posters is not, and has never been, enough. This is where have a set induction process where people sign to say they've received it and understood it prevents this kind of claim getting off the ground. Bet this was in their policy, bet they didn't follow it, hence the ruling.

What about people having a little bit of common sense and personal responsibility?

can Craggy Island not counter-sue for inappropriate risks taken whilst using their facilities, endangering others and idiocy?
I might set up an ambulance-chaser chaser firm to bring a counter-suing culture to the UK. There must be money in it.
I might even just start trying to sue people willy-nilly for taking inappropriate risks.
.
how much compo did she get anyway?

What might happen though, is that we won't be able to move without walking past a "DANGER" sign on every route/problem etc.

What about people with literacy problems? Or people for whom English isn't their native language?

That'd be flagged on the induction - "fill in this form" - and should be handled with appropriately. Anyone not clearly understanding the warnings and advice would be prevented from participating.

Bet this was in their policy, bet they didn't follow it, hence the ruling.

Again, you're making assumptions, this may or may not be true.

From the sounds of things, it's looking like she was inducted to climb on the main wall, then took it upon herself to overconfidently cock about somewhere she wasn't intended to be and hadn't been properly briefed on.

What about people having a little bit of common sense and personal responsibility?

Yep they need that too. Its not one or the other though. Expecting people not to behave like cocks is fine as long as you adequately warn them of the dangers present and make a decent effort to mitigate them, be it through signs, inductions, supervision etc.

i'd guess that in this case the judge has decided that she had 33% responsibility for her actions and the company had 67% responsibility to properly induct her, warn her of the risks and supervise the activity. Both parties failed.

cougar - from the article:

[i]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.

"They failed to go through any drill with her as to the appropriate way to climb down."

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".[/i]

could it actually be any clearer? no assumptions there.

could it actually be any clearer? no assumptions there.

If the group had told the centre that they were only using the lead wall and had no intentions of bouldering then the staff might well have decided not to induct them on an area they weren't using. Whether or not that's a wise decision is questionable, perhaps in that case they should've stressed that they required separate training / supervision for the bouldering area.

But I don't know, I'm speculating too. There's every chance that they should have given them a full induction and didn't follow their own procedures. Point is, we don't know from the information given, and you can't just automatically assume that the Judge's decision is a statement of fact in a case where it's one party's word against another. Courts can and do make mistakes, that's why we have higher courts and appeal procedures.

the instructors' claims that she was specifically warned not to jump off.

Could it actually be any clearer? The judge seems to have taken her word for it (and ignored the presence of lots of safety information that she could have read if she could be bothered).

Rumour has it that Joe Simpson's lawyers are now lining up a case against the Siula Grande

i think the bottom line is that the centre could not PROVE they'd followed their own procedures and that's the nub of the breach. In my experience its usually a paper trail thats missing in cases like these

i think the bottom line is that the centre could not PROVE they'd followed their own procedures

Beyond reasonable doubt? They don't need to do that - just balance of probabilities, for which an instructor's word is sufficient (though clearly it became one person's word against another, and the judge chose to believe the high flying professional).

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".

Pathetic 🙄

in a first for STW i'll admit to not having read all 3 pages but the key thing is in OP

during a team-building exercise has won the right to compensation.

this would suggest the management of the climbing wall and the providers of the activity had a very specific duty of care to someone taking part in activity which they probably had no experience of and no knowledge of the risks - a higher duty of carethan for adult climbers/boulders enjoying a sport with which they would hopefully be familiar with the risks involved and have probably signed disclaimers stating they have experience and understand the risks

back in the early eighties worked with the BMC and the Health and Safety Executive on devising guidelines for climbing walls - HSE very happy for "willing participants" to enjoy the risk in their sport - but attitude totally different to those under tuition (and especially kids)in a surprisingly commonsense way

i think the bottom line is that the centre could not PROVE they'd followed their own procedures and that's the nub of the breach. In my experience its usually a paper trail thats missing in cases like these

The instructors need to be confirming people have understood their briefing. Whether that is signing something, answering some questions (even verbally) etc. I think centres also could be seen as being negligent if there are other people jumping off bouldering walls and the instructors either don't intervene or point out to their students that it is wrong/dangerous.

I've certainly seen climbing instructors at popular walls who were not properly in control of their group. Now admittedly this was children - but actually bankers aren't necessarily that much better at listening/paying attention.

I wonder if there are more signs / warnings up now than there were at the time of the accident.

this supposedly intelligent woman failed to use common sense and has, by blaming others for her own stupidity

Not entirely fair.

It's not stupidity to jump 5ft from a bouldering wall. Turn up at any climbing centre and you'll see people doing it all the time. I'm often too tired after a difficult problem to climb all the way back down and will often drop the last few feet. I'm also guilty of bombing from the top rail from time to time if no one is around (who doesn't?).

The difference between me and that woman is that I KNOW that I still have to land well in order to minimise my chances of an injury. She may have assumed (after standing on the squishy mats and seeing other dropping from height) that it's more safe than it actually is - which isn't an entirely silly assumption and isn't completely devoid of common sense.

She wasn't stupid in jumping off. She was just unlucky by the sounds of things. Had she been stronger or landed with a bit more technique, this probably wouldn't have happened.

What she IS guilty of, is jumping off without having the necessary skills to minimise her risk of injury. But, she probably didn't think she needed them because of the mats and no one saying "hey guys, i know these mats feel nice and soft, but even falling the wrong way from 2 feet can duff up you ankle/back etc).

I'm still of the view that ANY drop/jump can cause injury, and people ought to be aware of that.

In fact, on Saturday evening I was making a push for one hold up from a sitting start and missed. I had extended and landed awkwardly on my back...from about 1ft. It still hurt for the whole car journey home.