How much of a chunk of the cost of gear do you think can be attributed to liability insurance? Anybody know of any high profile lawsuits against manufacturers resulting from climbing accidents?

im pretty sure lawsuits are (part of) the reason BD is no longer owned by Yvon.

During the late 1980s, Chouinard Equipment Ltd. was the target of several liability lawsuits, mostly the result of non-climbers who alleged not that the equipment was defective, but that there was insufficient warning of the dangers of climbing. Yvon Chouinard placed the company in Chapter 11 bankruptcy in early 1989.

Interesting. I can't explain why, but I often wonder how much cost is added to products because of litigation and liability insurance. I'm not even a lawyer!

And the "CHOUINARD" incident with Jim Bridwell, as were most of the potentially other scenarios, ARE/WERE NOT from equipment failure.

Rather, from OPERATOR IGNORANCE/ERROR!

The Choiuinard incident set precedence and this Operator Ignorance/Error sends the case right into the shit can where it belongs. As long as the manu has their ducks in row via proper usage instruction manual and the attached disclaimer, the case gets thrown out.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Petzl? Doesn't care about the welfare of climbers?" Black Diamond? DMM?

I don't believe it. These are climber companies run by climbers, for the most part.

And they all started out in a garage, making gear for friends and cohorts.

I'm not arguing the place of lawsuits, nor am I interested in the topic of tort reform. I'm just saying there is a grass roots aspect to climbing gear that warrants consideration. Our sport would be far poorer if every garage engineer needed liability insurance prior to allowing someone else to use their new invention.

Cheers
DMT

I just love being the "test pilot" for new gear.

Mid 1970's, EE and I go climbing.

EE wants to go someplace "out of the way".

When we are sure no one is around, he pulls out-a new toy- a set of what would later be named "Friends".

EE had been given a "set" to go use and abuse, with strict instructions that no one could see them.

They were sort of crude, hand made deals with file marks and scratches all over.

They worked really fine.

I am sure Ray wasn't spending his money on "Insurance" at the time.

I agree with Dingus about BD, Petzel, DMM etc. I only use gear made by "CLIMBERS".

I am knot interested in "cheap gear" made by 3rd world folks in a sweat shop, who's only goal is to make their "quota" for the day.

gk

This thread is a perfect example of the modern American mentality.

Failure to accept personal responsibility for ones actions and placing the blame on someone else for ones personal choice/ignorance.

Something that folks seem to have forgotten these days....

Mountain, Rock & Ice Climbing are all Inherently Dangerous Activities regardless of equipment.

Remember that.

Unfkingbelievable!!!!!!

MikeTX wrote:If a brand new piece of equipment that I used according to the manufacturer's instruction puts me in the hospital, I'm suing. What's wrong with that?

Mountain, Rock & Ice Climbing are all Inherently Dangerous Activities regardless of equipment.

Remember that!

The Chief wrote:

MikeTX wrote:If a brand new piece of equipment that I used according to the manufacturer's instruction puts me in the hospital, I'm suing. What's wrong with that?

Mountain, Rock & Ice Climbing are all Inherently Dangerous Activities regardless of equipment.

Remember that!

Chief, I always laugh at the "warning stickers" on every piece of gear sold.

One would be truly a simpleton if they could not figure out that this sport can be a fast forward to DEATH.

And Mike, your "heirs" will be doing the suing.

Anyone want to test drive this baby?


Or a set of Leeper Z-Nutz?


How about a “Gulag” cam?


Or a prototype ball…

MikeTX wrote:
If I make a mistake, I'll gladly take responsibility for it. If a brand new piece of equipment that I used according to the manufacturer's instruction puts me in the hospital, I'm suing. What's wrong with that?

Torts

A lot of the angst comes from a new interpretation of "used according to the manufacturer's instruction"; that new interpretation is that the manufacturer must warn you of any possible risk the might come from product use in unconventional, even illegal ways. Some hold that if the manufacturer did not explicitly warn you of the danger of putting a piton up your nose, and you get injured doing so, you have a right to sue.

What fraction of product liability suits follow such extreme interpretations? I have no idea, but such suits make headlines. If you follow the tort link above, you can read about the ladder placed on frozen manure, and other examples.

ksolem wrote:Anyone want to test drive this baby?


Or a set of Leeper Z-Nutz?


How about a “Gulag” cam?


Or a prototype ball…

Kris, that aluminum hook is defective!

See ya in court.

So the guy weighed almost 450 lbs.??

I like this one

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures ... +warning/#

MikeTX wrote:

ksolem wrote:So the guy weighed almost 450 lbs.??

If the ladder was supposed to support 1000 lbs his weight is beside the point. That's more than a factor of safety of two.

I'm just raising the point that if the guy weighed almost 450, he probably was not safe up on a ladder anyway. I think congress should pass a law lowering the maximum safety ratings of ladders to keep fatso's on the ground where they belong.

A climbing rope will hold a lot more than 450 lbs. too, but would you take a guy that size up on a wall?