Forum menu
I understand what you're saying peterfile but I would very much like to know what instructions she was actually given, as the instructors claim that she was told appears to have been discounted in the ruling.
I understand what you're saying peterfile but I would very much like to know what instructions she was actually given, as the instructors claims that she was told appears to have been discounted in the ruling.
I think that's what it came down to woody. *my speculation* Craggy Island couldn't properly demonstrate that they had conveyed this information. The judge obviously felt that although she should have known that she might injure herself dropping from such height (which is why he apportioned 1/3 liability to her), it seems to be that the other 2/3rds were apportioned to CI on the basis that he did not feel that they properly informed her of the risks.
i.e.
Judge says "Lady, you're partially responsible because you had other options available to you than just jumping off. Craggy Island, you're also partially responsibly because I don't consider that you properly informed her of the risks involved in jumping off, or how to land safely if she did so"
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.
so why not make a claim?
so why not make a claim?
Because I knew that if I screwed up the move and landed awkwardly then I could hurt myself. How did I know this - because I've experienced it time and time again.
How many times do you think that litigation-happy-woman has experienced a fall on a bouldering mat?
I'm only playing devil's advocate here, but my point is the we (and be "we" I mean people who undertake any sort of regular fall sport like bouldering, cycling etc) just accept that risk of injury. We are aware of it and accept it.
It seems almost inconcievable that someone would fall off Ft Bill DH at 40mph and be surprised that "it hurt". But until you've experienced the various impacts that your body will be subjected to, and how it feels when those impacts are absorbed well or not so well, then it's probably not in your mind.
So you see padded mats (or in the case of mtb, lots of body armour) and as a complete novice you might think "ah, that will be to stop me getting hurt, because why on earth would anyone take up a hobby where you get hurt all the time"
(actually, i've just remembered the very first time i took a fall whilst learning to lead climb. Wasn't expecting my ball to be on the wrong side of my harness. That's something that will stay with me for a while 😉 )
so would the law differentiate on the grounds of the experience an individual has in the activity?
so would the law differentiate on the grounds of the experience an individual has in the activity?
Don't quote me on this, i'm not a litigator so i'm looking way back to law school here...but yes. If the person was an experienced climber of say, 10 years, and she jumped off and broke her ankle, the judge would be likely to apportion most or ALL of the liability to that person since they were completely aware of the risk and made the decision to jump with full knowledge of the potential ramifications if they landed awkwardly
interesting.
anyway, who are you billing for all your time on this thread pete?
i'm working my notice period at the moment, so have the slightly weird honeymoon period of no one giving me any real work, but having to make sure my "house is in order" before I leave 🙂
(i.e. I'm twiddling my thumbs at the moment!)
would your employer be culpable if you sprained your thumb whilst twiddling them, because they hadn't given you enough work to do?
Nah, but I have a term in my contract which i've always found really amusing.
Basically, the firm are obliged to pay my salary, but they specifically carve out any obiligation to actually give me any work!
Presumably it's so that you can't go for breach of contract during quiet periods, but it amuses me to think of a lawyer suing their firm for being able to surf the internet and go home at 6pm everyday for the same money as if they were being beasted by a client for 15 hours a day 🙂
brakes -
so would the law differentiate on the grounds of the experience an individual has in the activity?
Probably, but important here that they were being supervised. Duty of care is higher.
If she'd turned up at a climbing wall on her own, signed her bit of paper (acknowledging it's dangerous, that she won't use the ropes and that she'll abide by all the rules and read all the safety instructions) and done exactly the same, it would be reasonable for the wall to say there were massive signs all over the place and that she'd agreed to read and abide by them.
Might still be contributory negligence if the court decided there should have been a proper induction for new members, but much more likely to be the other way round from this case.
so would the law differentiate on the grounds of the experience an individual has in the activity?
In terms of health and safety law, yes absolutely. And rightly so because it puts the onus firmly on the employer to ensure people are properly trained and experienced before they carry out hazardous tasks. This mainly relates to employees of course, but in this instance it would extend in certain ways to members of the public.
thw womans an idiot.
there are signs up telling you too climb down.
she ignored them, hurts herself, and now looks to blame someone else.
tough sh.t.
hope it bloody hurt as well...
i've just remembered the very first time i took a fall whilst learning to lead climb. Wasn't expecting my ball to be on the wrong side of my harness.
One of the things I learned fairly early on in my climbing career was that for all their positive qualities, testicles were never designed to be load-bearing.
Can't say as I ever took a leader fall onto one though. Bet that smarted a bit.
as OMITN points out is is a very well established area of law.
No doubt the lawyers for CI would have/should have robustly argued [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria ]Volenti non fit injuria[/url].
One of the things I learned fairly early on in my climbing career was that for all their positive qualities, testicles were never designed to be load-bearing.Can't say as I ever took a leader fall onto one though. Bet that smarted a bit.
I had a full blown panic attack still on the wall..."get me F***ing down!!!!" etc etc
Images of a mushy mess filled my mind as everyone (including lots of kids) tried to work out what was wrong with this screaming and swearing maniac swinging around about 20ft off the floor. 🙂
The problem was that I had only ever top roped until that point, so I was used to the slack being taken in and the harness being pulled a bit tighter before making a big move - so the goods were already correctly stowed if you get what I mean.
I tend to check things a bit more often these days 🙂
To be fair, one of the worst grape crushing incidents was actually while belaying my mate who was climbing too quickly and then came off with loads of slack. 😯
No doubt the lawyers for CI would have/should have robustly argued Volenti non fit injuria.
IIRC, volenti won't apply where the harm could have been prevented by the defendant. The case being here that proper instruction wasn't given to the woman, therefore no ability to rely on volenti.
Volenti is assumes that the IP is in full knowledge of the consequences. Contributory negligence would have been pressed far harder by the defence I reckon.
Cougar & Peter - have you tried the cargo net at a Go Ape, without pre-adjustment? My eyes are watering now!
Yeah, maybe, I don't know the relevant case law.
It was my first port of call as it would be fairly easy to argue (on balance of probability)that a reasonable person could forsee the risks and thus demonstrates willingness or acceptance of risk.
Cougar & Peter - have you tried the cargo net at a Go Ape, without pre-adjustment? My eyes are watering now!
😯 I reckon harness/testicle interfaces are as significant as child birth in terms of pain and long term psychological impact. Although definitely less costly in financial terms.
From memory there's 2 bits to volenti. One is being aware of the risks and two is being prepared to act without resorting to a claim if it goes tits up (not sure if that's proper legalese) . It's the second bit that's a problem to prove and it's why volenti isn't used much.
I reckon the lawyers for the climbing centre would have pressed hard for CN. I.E 'yes we can't prove we did everything by the book and our policies but quite clearly m'lud she's a f-ckwit'.
I imagine what has happen is that her work mates/collegues are in cahoots insofar that they were asked 'did the instructor tell you that you can get injured on the soft squishey mats?', and of course they all agreed as if person No. 1 heard him say that then they'regonna say 'no'! arent they?
What REALLY annoys me, and I think this is what it all boils down to, is this:
Woman injures herself whilst on climbing trip with work.
Probably pretty painful (i've broken my ankle before, not the worst, but it's not that nice either).
So she's laid up at home and and everyone at work is talking about it.
HBOS start bricking it in case she brings a claim against them, or she has a legal savvy mate - either way, someone plants the seed in her head that she could claim for damages because it wasn't all her own fault.
I bet she wasn't sat at home thinking "those B***ards broke my ankle! I'll get them!". Some other bottom feeder will have pushed her into it "you really ought to you know, lots of money you know, someone could have died you know, got to put a stop to this sort of negligence, think of the children etc etc"
🙄
I think there should be a national register of people who win such cases so that buisnesses can exclude them form their premises. It could be set up by insurance companies and public authorities and built into reservation systems. When the name fits a photo pops up with the instruction: "this person is dangerous, conduct them off the premisies ASAP. Under no circumstances sign a contract with their name on it or take money for goods or services from them".
OOps. Has anyone else noticed there's sometimes a delay between posting and the post appearing?
Cougar & Peter - have you tried the cargo net at a Go Ape, without pre-adjustment? My eyes are watering now!
Never had an issue at Go Ape. Thing is, once you've done it once, when fitting a harness you always make sure you're dressed correctly.
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.
Tell you what, for a builder you've got a fairly impressive level of legal knowledge. I know times are hard in the construction industry, so if ever you're struggling to find work I think you might be able to use that.
I bet she wasn't sat at home thinking "those B***ards broke my ankle! I'll get them!". Some other bottom feeder will have pushed her into it "you really ought to you know, lots of money you know, someone could have died you know, got to put a stop to this sort of negligence, think of the children etc etc"
When I searched for the story - what came up was loads of pages from claims lawyer companies, basically suggesting 'look what this woman did, you could do the same, look she got 100 grand!!! Go on, you do it too'.
I think there should be a national register of people who win such cases so that buisnesses can exclude them form their premises. It could be set up by insurance companies and public authorities and built into reservation systems. When the name fits a photo pops up with the instruction: [b]"this person is [u]stupid[/u], conduct them off the premisies ASAP. [/b]Under no circumstances sign a contract with their name on it or take money for goods or services from them".FTFY
Tell you what, for a builder you've got a fairly impressive level of legal knowledge. I know times are hard in the construction industry, so if ever you're struggling to find work I think you might be able to use that.
Yeah, it's mainly because all these **** lawyers spend years trying to make things like the Olympics actually happen so people will stop moaning that the UK never does anything (and then whinge about pointless shit like the logo), and normally us builders are bored senseless sat about the site canteen reading Nuts magazine while we wait for them to finish their stupid negotiations and stuff...but not me, i sometimes go along to watch the meetings to kill time, so i've picked up a little bit of knowledge.
People launch civil claims for all sorts of reasons. Not every one is a blag. I remember a couple from fairly recently that I've defended. One was a lady who had allegedly hurt her back whilst moving her PC. Sounds like bollocks to begin with but a bit of digging reveals that she had inoperable cancer of the spine, had no money and little chance of recovery. Probably spurious but understandable. Another was a bloke who fell off a chair when it broke. Hardly injured him at all but he was majorly pissed off at a couple of estates staff who laughed at him when he reported it. Etc.
People launch civil claims for all sorts of reasons. Not every one is a blag.
Oh without a doubt. I worked in maritime sector for a bit as a trainee and some of the commercial shipping PI claims were brutal. Guys losing their arms and stuff. 😕
Absolutely, but for every genuine case there will be 'hundreds' that are trying it on.
Mother In Law, who is a Physio, with her own private practice is kept busy with a daily influx of them. No interest in getting better, but all in phenominal amounts of pain with "sprained ankles/whiplash"?!
They tend to have a commonality with benefit cheats; that is their propensity to commit fraud!
Getting a few quid for a broken ankle that was largely your own fault...
Having the whole of England know that you are cheap enough to sue someone for it... Priceless.
Still not fair to call the woman stupid without knowing the whole story.
Bouldering mats. Another case of risk compensation? Would she have climbed that high and risked falling like that on to a bare floor?
Absolutely, but for every genuine case there will be 'hundreds' that are trying it on.
LOL, keep reading the Sun.
LOL, keep reading the Sun.
Yup that is why I used the '' marks... to show that it was completely unsubstanciated... then followed up with anacdotal 'evidence' (notice those marks again)?
i reckon I've maybe been party to around 50 claims in my time. Of those fifty I can only recall 2 or 3 that were totally without foundation. In all of the others the claimant did actually suffer some form of injury and I would say that in perhaps two thirds of the claims I advised the employer that they were at least partially to blame.
Actually I also remember back in the early days talking to a solicitor about a particular case and calling the claimant a 'f-cking parasite'. Unfortunately for me, the employee being discussed was standing about 3 feet away! 😀