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:

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”.

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”.

So…… this supposedly intelligent woman failed to use common sense and has, by blaming others for her own stupidity, made money by claiming to have no understanding of the effects of gravity. Did she also claim to be illiterate as well as deaf, as I can see no other reason as to why the judge chose to believe her as opposed to the instructors re warnings and the fact that there are posters saying the same thing.

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

Indeed, or if all her colleagues had given statements that she was ‘inducted’ properly. In my experience of climbing centres the accoustics are often not great, they can be quite noisey and with a big group and mumbling instructor (or one who isn’t very good at annunciating, explaining or who has got a bit lax as its his 4th group this afternoon, his 20th this week and 200th this year). I’ve never been to Craggy Island, but I’ve always been surprised how relatively easy it was to get into most climbing walls (don’t think I have ever been asked demonstrate competence – and one wall with a “trick” double negative question gave my wife the form back and asked her to check her answers). They seem to rely heavily on signing the “risk statement” from the BMC that climbing is dangerous. If Craggy Island have a different approach requiring demonstration of skills I congratulate them, but perhaps that has bypassed the papertrail emphasis?

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.

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 Volenti non fit injuria.

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: “this person is stupid, 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”.

FTFY