Broken Rope Fall in Gym

Kent Richards wrote: I would much rather lead on my own rope then on a gym rope....

Ahh, I see, the best of both worlds ;)

Dylan B. wrote: The jury would have to decide which argument carries the day. I suspect that the gym would prevail, given common industry practice. But a persuasive lawyer might win the plaintiff's case.

Whoa Dylan, that was some jujitsu sh*t you just did there! Very clever how you were seemingly innocently explaining things from a lawyers perspective but all the while you were just giving everyone evidence for why lawyers -- and in particular, vulture plaintiff lawyers -- are amongst the douchey-ist of the bottom feeders in society. Well done. :)

With all due respect to the unfortunate individual who was injured, it is up to each climber to determine the safety of their own equipment and it is unfair to put the responsibility for this on the gym. If I were to choose to use a rope that had been in a car trunk for years and it proved unsafe, I would be wholely responsible for that decision and it's outcome, not some poor gym owner.
Maybe not what the lawyers might say, but basic common sense....

Dylan B. wrote: It's not up to the lawyers. It's up to the jury. If a jury of twelve, after hearing both sides, disagrees with you...well, that's the consensus of society (at least until the lobbyists step in and persuade the legislature to change it; then that's the new consensus).

First it's up to the lawyers, they're the ones that decide whether to even take a case. If no one is willing to be the douche lawyer then problem solved.

Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one.

csproul wrote:Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one.

Really nothing against lawyers in general, but in cases like this, it's usually lawyers that make us need lawyers.

Dylan B. wrote:First, best wishes to the injured climber. Let's see if I can take a shot at this. I'm not a tort lawyer, so there might be wrinkles here that I'm not considering. And of course each jurisdiction has its own approach to these cases. But here are two opposing arguments regarding gym liability for failures of climber-owned equipment: If I was representing an injured climber in a suit against a gym based on the facts of this accident as described, I would argue that the gym owes a duty to climbers to ensure that they are using adequate equipment. If, for example, a gym allowed you to lead with a hardware store rope, it would be breaching its duty of care to ensure the climbers are using adequate safety equipment. Likewise, if it allowed you to lead with a 20-year-old frayed climbing rope, it would be in breach of duty. Thus, the same principle applies to any rope brought into the premises. The gym, I would argue, can meet its duty by providing adequate equipment, or by inspecting equipment. But failure to do either was a breach of duty, supporting a cause for negligence. If I was counsel representing the defendant gym, I would present evidence that this is not the standard industry practice, and argue from there that the standard practice establishes what the gym's duty is. By electing not to provide equipment, and obtaining an informed waiver, the gym has no duty vis-a-vis the climber's individual equipment. I would argue that the gym has a duty to ensure equipment is adequate only if it elects to provide equipment and/or fails to obtain an informed waiver. The jury would have to decide which argument carries the day. I suspect that the gym would prevail, given common industry practice. But a persuasive lawyer might win the plaintiff's case.

I see your point... At the same time, I'd hope a jury would agree that the gym's duty doesn't extend to monitoring / assessing / validating the indivdual's storage, care, and inspection of his / her personal equipment, especially in the case of damage that can't be detected visually (such as chemical damage).

When is the US going to adopt a 'loser pays' rule for those plaintiffs and lawyers that bring meritless and frivolous lawsuits to trial ? There is nothing in place in the American legal system to dissuade lawyers from filing as many lawsuits as they want.

In this case in particular , if the decked climber chose to sue the climbing gym , he would know that he better have a damm good case , or else he is on the hook for the gym's legal cost to defend themselves.

No 'loser pays' laws are a perfect example of lobbyists hindering the best interests of the American people and protecting their rich and powerful lawyer benefactors...

Dylan B. wrote: The gym, I would argue, can meet its duty by providing adequate equipment, or by inspecting equipment. But failure to do either was a breach of duty, supporting a cause for negligence.

Hmm. Yeah, some jujitsu lawyering for sure. If a gym employee inspects gear, wouldn't that put more liability on them if gear failure takes places after said gear was approved by the gym? Chemical damage may not even be visible during an inspection. I would say more liability on the gym after inspection. The gyms i go to don't inspect harness, belay devices and biners. Not to mention, they allow some of the shitiest belaying in the world.

It's sad that so many individuals refuse to accept personal responsibility for their decisions.
Blaming the legal profession for this is somewhat unfair, although a minority of attorneys do promote said behaviors (I see their TV ads).

vincent L. wrote:When is the US going to adopt a 'loser pays' rule for those plaintiffs and lawyers that bring meritless and frivolous lawsuits to trial ? There is nothing in place in the American legal system to dissuade lawyers from filing as many lawsuits as they want. In this case in particular , if the decked climber chose to sue the climbing gym , he would know that he better have a damm good case , or else he is on the hook for the gym's legal cost to defend themselves. No 'loser pays' laws are a perfect example of lobbyists hindering the best interests of the American people and protecting their rich and powerful lawyer benefactors...

i could be wrong but i believe that some states do have this law.

csproul wrote: Ahh, I see, the best of both worlds ;)

HAHA got em.

As the old saying goes; You want a young Doctor and an old Lawyer..

Best wishes to the injured climber, he may need both.

Damn that is a rough injury. Having just broken only one ankle I can sympathize. My best to the climber, wishing him a speedy recovery. Also my sympathy to the belayer. I feel for you. It's tough to be part of an accident like that. Not your fault at all of course. Hang in there.

Paul Alberti

Paul Alberti wrote:Damn that is a rough injury. Having just broken only one ankle I can sympathize. My best to the climber, wishing him a speedy recovery. Also my sympathy to the belayer. I feel for you. It's tough to be part of an accident like that. Not your fault at all of course. Hang in there. Paul Alberti

+1
With all the discussion about ropes and lawyers and all, one tends to forget that an unfortunate climber has sustained a scary and painful injury.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I would be interested in seeing photos of the rope failure and testing as to how and why it failed.

Leaking exhaust fumes and high heat or just the constant high levels of sulfuric acid fumes for that prolonged at period of time ??
This is way beyond my pay scale, any chemical engineers /rope makers care to chime in?

Jim Fox wrote: an unfortunate climber has sustained a scary and painful injury. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

No kidding, it's awful. Wishing him the best.

The guy who took this fall suffered fairly horrific injuries, an open crush wound is a hideous thing, you probably don't want to do a google image search to see why if you've got a weak stomach.

From what I heard, the fall was in the 45 foot region, so you guess it could have been worse.

Is there any update on a reason for the rope snapping, it's scary to hear this type of thing occurring? Four years is a while, but it's not forever by any stretch.

I've head friends whose kids used their ropes to make tree houses in between climbs over a period of 5 years or more, and while I never used said rope myself, I'm shocked to hear that any rope would just snap without some kind of sharp edge or chemical being applied to it.

Dylan B. wrote:I would argue that the gym owes a duty to climbers to ensure that they are using adequate equipment. If, for example, a gym allowed you to lead with a hardware store rope, it would be breaching its duty of care to ensure the climbers are using adequate safety equipment.

I'm curious: why does the gym have a duty of care to ensure climbers are using adequate safety equipment?

Seems to me that if you decide to go climbing and bring your own stuff, you're responsible for it, and no one else. I can see the gym being responsible for the condition of the gym, but not my stuff.