Qustions to ponder: the landowner establishes a written methodology to be used for bolting, and in addition establishes a maintenance procedure to insure the methodology is used and maintained. Information is dispersed to the climbing community of these established procedures. The climber now climbs under the assumption and/or perception the route is structurally safe.
A bolt or anchor pulls. If injuries occur, is the landowner liable, if a fee was charged? If no fee was charged?
If no policy was written and no maintenance procedures existed, is the landowner less liable or more liable?
Liability Issues
Would posting of "climb at your own risk" signs help? Perhaps if a standard sign was distributed explaining this is private property open to recreational use and anything that happens to the recreational user is that person's own fault would help protect the owners.
The McDonald's lawsuit noted above was a proper lawsuit and the decision really should have been much larger. Punitive damages are meant to HURT the entity being sued and it would've taken 50 million dollars for McDonald's to even wince in pain....
A really stupid lawsuit was against a ski manufacturer for not having warning labels on their skis. This rich guy bought the most expensive skis in the place even though he was a complete beginner and the guy in the store recommended against the speed skis for him. So he, a rank amateur, hit 60 mph on these skis, fell down, and broke his leg. He was awarded some ridiculous amount of money in his suite against the ski maker. It's staggering. Luckily it's a rarity.
The McDonald's lawsuit noted above was a proper lawsuit and the decision really should have been much larger. Punitive damages are meant to HURT the entity being sued and it would've taken 50 million dollars for McDonald's to even wince in pain....
A really stupid lawsuit was against a ski manufacturer for not having warning labels on their skis. This rich guy bought the most expensive skis in the place even though he was a complete beginner and the guy in the store recommended against the speed skis for him. So he, a rank amateur, hit 60 mph on these skis, fell down, and broke his leg. He was awarded some ridiculous amount of money in his suite against the ski maker. It's staggering. Luckily it's a rarity.
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
Recently there was an incident involving a Portable Climbing Wall, which could have lasting implications to the sport as a whole. A girl in Missouri was climbing on a PW when the cable broke. It would seem that the cable had been damaged and was covered with duct tape...no need to go into the obvious here.
What has stemmed from this was a release by the National Consumer Product & Safety Commission, suggesting that all states begin to regulate "Climbing Walls and portable Climbing Walls". Most of their suggestions, obviously follow along the line of Portable walls, however, this is likely just step one of a series of regulations. One state, I believe Oklahoma, has already stepped up and now requires all climbing gyms and PW companies to be registered with the state and get inspected by state inspectors. (Same department as Amusement park ride inspectors...likely same inspectors.)
Fast forward down the road and the possiblity exists that if a plot of land is used solely or largely for the purpose of climbing, it could be held to the state's regulation and therefore be required to have things like all anchor points inspected on a regular basis. Likely the inspectors would not inspect all, but would require proof of paperwork showing that someone has and does inspect all anchors on the property. In my view, something like this could certainly provide you with support should a law suit arise...cause it's really hard to sue the state and you would likely have to at least name the inspection division as well as the property owner if you wanted to file a claim. I don't think that this situation will arise anytime soon, but if it does, you can bet that the land owner will be required to show proof of insurance.
FYI, Ohio has legislation in the works to require all climbing gyms and portable walls to be registered with the state and be inspected. Look for this type of legislation soon. I can't imagine they would sit on this.
What has stemmed from this was a release by the National Consumer Product & Safety Commission, suggesting that all states begin to regulate "Climbing Walls and portable Climbing Walls". Most of their suggestions, obviously follow along the line of Portable walls, however, this is likely just step one of a series of regulations. One state, I believe Oklahoma, has already stepped up and now requires all climbing gyms and PW companies to be registered with the state and get inspected by state inspectors. (Same department as Amusement park ride inspectors...likely same inspectors.)
Fast forward down the road and the possiblity exists that if a plot of land is used solely or largely for the purpose of climbing, it could be held to the state's regulation and therefore be required to have things like all anchor points inspected on a regular basis. Likely the inspectors would not inspect all, but would require proof of paperwork showing that someone has and does inspect all anchors on the property. In my view, something like this could certainly provide you with support should a law suit arise...cause it's really hard to sue the state and you would likely have to at least name the inspection division as well as the property owner if you wanted to file a claim. I don't think that this situation will arise anytime soon, but if it does, you can bet that the land owner will be required to show proof of insurance.
FYI, Ohio has legislation in the works to require all climbing gyms and portable walls to be registered with the state and be inspected. Look for this type of legislation soon. I can't imagine they would sit on this.
-
captain static
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 6:05 pm
Maybee eventually transferring the Murray Property over to the USFS wouldn't be such a bad idea? No liability and leverage the proceeds to acquire more private land.
"Be responsible for your actions and sensitive to the concerns of other visitors and land managers. ... Your reward is the opportunity to climb in one of the most beautiful areas in this part of the country." John H. Bronaugh
J: It is my understanding that “charging for use” opens the doors to additional liability issues, however it does not completely eliminate all liabilities. Particularly in those situation where the owner willingly or inadvertently assumes responsibilities associated with safety issues.
Caption Static: I believe there are great tax incentives available for such transactions. However, I have been informed that a “no stipulation” clause is buried within the USFS boilerplate agreement. Interesting enough; I believe mining and timber companies are exempt from this clause. If this “no stipulation” clause exist and cannot be struck from such an agreement, the issue of climbing would be left in the hands of the USFS. In other words, the USFS would gladly assume the responsibility for the land, but they don't want to be told how to manage it.
Some ideas: based on the assumption that a revenue stream will need to be maintained for taxes, improvements, signage, etc: Membership fees to the RRGCC with the right to climb FREE on the RRGCC owned property may be something to consider. Once you become a RRGCC member and sign a release form, you would be issued a laminated membership card that can be attached to the back of you harness. Select a few business establishments where memberships can be purchased. Of course everyone would be welcome to join the RRGCC, but ‘No Trespassing” signs might have to apply for those who have not signed a release form.
Those of us from Cincinnati may remember when such a pass was required to climb at the Eden Park reservoir. Or perhaps this has similarities to the pass required at the Gunks, belay verifications cards issued in climbing gyms, and USFS day passes.
Brainstorming folks, just brainstorming.
Caption Static: I believe there are great tax incentives available for such transactions. However, I have been informed that a “no stipulation” clause is buried within the USFS boilerplate agreement. Interesting enough; I believe mining and timber companies are exempt from this clause. If this “no stipulation” clause exist and cannot be struck from such an agreement, the issue of climbing would be left in the hands of the USFS. In other words, the USFS would gladly assume the responsibility for the land, but they don't want to be told how to manage it.
Some ideas: based on the assumption that a revenue stream will need to be maintained for taxes, improvements, signage, etc: Membership fees to the RRGCC with the right to climb FREE on the RRGCC owned property may be something to consider. Once you become a RRGCC member and sign a release form, you would be issued a laminated membership card that can be attached to the back of you harness. Select a few business establishments where memberships can be purchased. Of course everyone would be welcome to join the RRGCC, but ‘No Trespassing” signs might have to apply for those who have not signed a release form.
Those of us from Cincinnati may remember when such a pass was required to climb at the Eden Park reservoir. Or perhaps this has similarities to the pass required at the Gunks, belay verifications cards issued in climbing gyms, and USFS day passes.
Brainstorming folks, just brainstorming.
-
captain static
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 6:05 pm
Funny how that works. Got a big enough lobby and you get an exemption. It is my read that the USFS focus on intensive management of climbing centers on the Geologic Area? Thus I am not as concerned about areas outside of the Gorge proper. Of course then there was Hominy Hole? There would certainly be a trade-off of liability headaches vs. FS control.Captain Static: I believe there are great tax incentives available for such transactions. However, I have been informed that a “no stipulation” clause is buried within the USFS boilerplate agreement. Interesting enough; I believe mining and timber companies are exempt from this clause. If this “no stipulation” clause exist and cannot be struck from such an agreement, the issue of climbing would be left in the hands of the USFS. In other words, the USFS would gladly assume the responsibility for the land, but they don't want to be told how to manage it.
This is similar to what the Access Fund had proposed for us for Springfield Gorge. We weren't contemplating a fee though.Some ideas: based on the assumption that a revenue stream will need to be maintained for taxes, improvements, signage, etc: Membership fees to the RRGCC with the right to climb FREE on the RRGCC owned property may be something to consider. Once you become a RRGCC member and sign a release form, you would be issued a laminated membership card that can be attached to the back of you harness. Select a few business establishments where memberships can be purchased. Of course everyone would be welcome to join the RRGCC, but ‘No Trespassing” signs might have to apply for those who have not signed a release form.
"Be responsible for your actions and sensitive to the concerns of other visitors and land managers. ... Your reward is the opportunity to climb in one of the most beautiful areas in this part of the country." John H. Bronaugh