bolters being sued?

has anyone ever heard of someone being injured on a sport route (or any route for that matter) and then suing the FA? this seems like it could very easily happen with all the litigation going on these days.

No it really couldn't. Tort law for accidents arising out of outdoor recreation has really evolved in favor of not finding liability. Most of the doom and gloom spouted about frivilous lawsuits, etc., originate from insurers, healthcare or other business looking to pass legislation insulating themselves from liability, even when they are at fault.

Don't buy the hype.

Jake D. wrote: haha the 70's called... they want their limited view of climbing back. you do know there is rock that doesn't take gear right? don't you?

You do know that gear isn't strictly needed to climb, right?

Jake,
maybe you should hear yourself as you selfishly deride a
"70's" ethic of preserving the natural world.
Consider how unhappy you will be if the base area of your favorite sport crag gets transformed into a moto-cross or 4-wheeler area.
As the US gets more over-populated, invasive land use will destroy ever larger areas of what is today wild land.
It's time to go Back to the Future.

Jake,
You opened the door to ethics by raising questions about 70's environmental ethics as related to climbing difficulty. I expanded it to today's environmental reality.
Where have I seen this happen? Well, from the perspective of someone who was climbing more than 28 years ago, I have seen a great deal of once wild or open land devoured by development.
The spreading suburbs of Vegas right to the edge of Red Rocks.
Slat Lake City's foothills covered with housing developments.
The Front Range's massive growth. (Boulder County's restrictive land use policies are the only thing that has preserved open space there.)
Suburbs growing around CT's cliffs.
I'm sure other climbers will offer examples from other states.

Speaking to the idea of "sport crags" vs. "trad crags", I have this...

Over my relatively short climbing career, I have been to most every crag in the SouthEast. Crags with predominately sport routes tend to feel overused, more corwded, and louder on any given Saturday. Examples include places like Fosters and Sandrock. Where, predominately trad areas such as Jamestown, The Tennessee Wall, etc suffer less impact and the folks frequenting the area generally "behave" a bit more.

Now for something to consider...if "Sport Crags", were chopped, left dormant except for folks willing to find that dinky gear, or run it out, or, in the extreme, solo, would the area benefit from a conservational perspective? Likely so.

OK, thread drift on my part.
My point on bolts and development, 4-wheelers etc, is that climbers are very self-centered and view their activities in a bubble, and that the same values used to justify placing ever more bolts, will be used by other groups to further their own narrow interests, with the environment suffering greatly as a result.
Back top the original thread, I'm sure someone will sue the person who placed a bolt if it pops and kills the beautiful child of someone with money who wants vengeance.
Happy climbing!

I love it! The bolt wars rage on. John, you have been a member of this site long enough to know that if you want to post about anything bolt related make sure it goes in the sport climbing form. If you don't, someone will make a small joke and the bolt wars will flare up again.

Cheers,

Nate

Jon Ruland wrote:has anyone ever heard of someone being injured on a sport route (or any route for that matter) and then suing the FA? this seems like it could very easily happen with all the litigation going on these days.

Has anyone every heard of someone being sued for making a REALLY stupid post, and wasting everyone's time? Seems like it could happen with all the litigation going on these days. Since my time has already been wasted, maybe someone could enlighten me letting me know the days when there wasn't all this litigation going on? Unless we've got the world's oldest man/woman posting here, I doubt it was when any of us have been around.

pfwein wrote: Has anyone every heard of someone being sued for making a REALLY stupid post, and wasting everyone's time?

This thread topic smacks of Extreme Boredom.

Eyes Of Green wrote: This thread topic smacks of Extreme Boredom.

Extreme Boredom? Dude then get the hell outside and go climbing like everyone else, aren't you in NV? I hope for your sake that you are stuck at work. My excuse is b/c 3 weeks ago I broke my L1 vertebrae, tore my ACL & Miniscus, and broke my heel when someone dropped me at the climbing gym so I'm laid up for the next 6-12 months.

You guys are keeping me entertained so keep it up! I can definitely use the entertainment.

To answer the original post, it is doubtful whether such a lawsuit would survive a summary judgment motion. The concept of assumption of risk has been adopted in most states. You engage in a "dangerous" activity such as rock climbing and you assume the obvious risk of injury or even death. You have a duty to inspect and ascess such factors as the route, bolts, your gear, your belayer's abilities, your own abilities, the weather, etc. before committing yourself to them. If you fail that duty, the law won't help you.

Recreational use statutes are also becoming more common, thankfully. These protect landowners from liability from recreationalists who get hurt on the landowners property. This has helped open lots of areas that had previously been closed.

That being said, you bolters need to do a good job. Use quality materials and put the proper type of bolts in good rock and in places a fall won't kill or injure the climber. More than your reputation is at stake.

Just because a lawsuit would probably be dismissed at some stage of the proceedings, it doesn't mean someone cannot file one. Lawyers cost money and you would be wise to hire one to defend the lawsuit, regardless of how far it goes.

Ben Lyon wrote:Speaking to the idea of "sport crags" vs. "trad crags", I have this... Over my relatively short climbing career, I have been to most every crag in the SouthEast. Crags with predominately sport routes tend to feel overused, more corwded, and louder on any given Saturday. Examples include places like Fosters and Sandrock. Where, predominately trad areas such as Jamestown, The Tennessee Wall, etc suffer less impact and the folks frequenting the area generally "behave" a bit more. Now for something to consider...if "Sport Crags", were chopped, left dormant except for folks willing to find that dinky gear, or run it out, or, in the extreme, solo, would the area benefit from a conservational perspective? Likely so.

Very well put Ben, you have my vote on trad...!

jarthur wrote: Extreme Boredom? Dude then get the hell outside and go climbing like everyone else, aren't you in NV?

Not my Extreme Boredom, the thread starter's Extreme Boredom! i.e. that's why he started it! :)

Jake D. wrote: Why should we leave whole areas empty because you think it's a bad idea?

Sorry, I'm a little late but with your logic why should we let you bolt these areas up because you think its a good Idea?

Also just because its been around thirty years doesn't mean it should stay.

Rasicm, Enthic Clensing, Opression, Industrial Pollution, Corrupt Organized Religion/Goverenments. They've all been around awhile, does that mean they should get to exist? Almost Everything has a place and time, Sport climbing probably was super crucial to the progression in climbing, for awhile anyway. To me enjoying climbing is not worth further perminently damaging the natural beauty we all have to share.

As for representing sport climbing, if there are some pros to it your certainly haven't presented any...no offense.

Holy Crap Batman! A sport climbing SUCKS...Trad climbing RULES thread. Bolts are for losers-no bolts created 5.15!

Awesome AND novel. Keep up the good work here...

Chase Gee wrote:Sorry, I'm a little late but with your logic why should we let you bolt these areas up because you think its a good Idea? Also just because its been around thirty years doesn't mean it should stay. Rasicm, Enthic Clensing, Opression, Industrial Pollution, Corrupt Organized Religion/Goverenments. They've all been around awhile, does that mean they should get to exist? Almost Everything has a place and time, Sport climbing probably was super crucial to the progression in climbing, for awhile anyway. To me enjoying climbing is not worth further perminently damaging the natural beauty we all have to share. As for representing sport climbing, if there are some pros to it your certainly haven't presented any...no offense.

Chase: if you think sport climbing is "perminently damaging the natural beauty" of anything, you should really consider the overall impact of your life on the this planet, and act accordingly.
amazon.com/Final-Exit-Third…
See ya, buddy

hahaha! I liked that.
bolting is just adding to the impact and its pretty unnecessary.

I appreciate the fact that you spent several minutes to find that item to insult me. I'm quite honored.

Eyes Of Green wrote: Not my Extreme Boredom, the thread starter's Extreme Boredom! i.e. that's why he started it! :)

Sorry dude, didn't mean to jump on your shiz.

Chase Gee wrote:hahaha! I liked that. bolting is just adding to the impact and its pretty unnecessary. I appreciate the fact that you spent several minutes to find that item to insult me. I'm quite honored.

Glad you took my post in the spirit I meant it. Not to beat this to death, but while you're right that bolting is unnecessary to maintain life, it is necessary if your hobby is sport climbing. To me and most people on this site, that's a valid hobby and worth the incremental damage to the rock, keeping in mind that modern human life has MUCH more impact on the planet than placing 3/8'' bolts in what most people see as random rock outcrops (e.g., Rifle). Live and let live--that means accepting other people's actions WITHIN REASON, even if that's not what u would do. Comparing placing bolts in rock to racism, etc. is not really a helpful analogy.

pfwein wrote: . Comparing placing bolts in rock to racism, etc. is not really a helpful analogy.

What i was trying to get acrossed with that is that just because its been around doesn't it mean it has a valid reason to stay around.