RRC Archives

Now he just has to work on his delivery. He must live in some weird Twilight Zone where the quote button never properly loads

like this sax? does it eat at you? bug you?

is it hijacked yet ?

pigsteak wrote:Now he just has to work on his delivery. He must live in some weird Twilight Zone where the quote button never properly loads

like this sax? does it eat at you? bug you?

You have to remember to take the time and type the name. Oh, and don't forget the asterisk. So.....

pigsteak wrote:

like this sax? does it eat at you? bug you?

***********

Truly sad to see such an awesome place have to change; great memories... I've heard it said that climbers were the ones to apologize to the loved ones when death became a part of the game, now climbers are left to apologize for climbers again in a sordid way. still a pity

actually, are there really any apologies needed? just say thank you and move on.

thank you.

Moving on.........

Wow, the posts that can appear in a few days' time while you're studying for finals...!

And since I am studying for my (law) finals and this provides a great hypothetical to work out, I can't help chiming in on the liability issues that were raised eight pages of posts ago.

The real issue with charging to climb is insurance.

Looking at the applicable law, anyone injured while climbing a trad route has no case—pay or not, waiver or not. On a sport route, there’s only a slightly stronger argument, and then only if a bolt fails, and then the injured person would have to show that the owner should have known the bolt was in bad shape or poorly placed. The essence is: when you climb, you know it can be a high risk activity, and you assume that risk, even if you don’t sign a piece of paper saying you do.

The duty a landowner has to guests is the same if there is economic benefit as it is if there is an invitation, even an open, implied invitation (Torrent, a week ago). Charging changes nothing.

So why do insurance companies charge more if you charge? Because they know people are more likely to sue you if they paid. Like Mark said, getting sued sucks. Defenses aren’t free (most of the time).

Though law school has kept me from making it to Torrent to climb, I’m saddened by the closure. They’re a good family and I hate to see anyone with a good heart be treated poorly.

whadam00 wrote: The duty a landowner has to guests is the same if there is economic benefit as it is if there is an invitation, even an open, implied invitation (Torrent, a week ago). Charging changes nothing.

See KRS 411.190 --portions of which are posted on p3

This thread needs more PULLED PORK
(not that kind Horatio)