Insurance - 'risk' vs 'safety'

[Onestepmore]

i just read a couple of interesting articles

http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from- ... n=08272013

Among those charged is the owner of the company that produced the rubber keepers without instructions, and the owner of the gear shop that sold the keepers. The manager of the club that organized the climbing trip, as well as two of the instructors who were on site, have also been charged for failing to monitor the assembly of the equipment.
My bold in the above quote. Food for thought - so in effect they are saying that a person who sells a piece of euipment is at fault if it's used incorrectly. Or is it more that he sold a piece of gear that didn't have correct instructions? That puts a large amount of responsibility on the retailer. Does each sales assistant also need to check each item has the correct instructions? How can they check if someone reads it? or carries the instructions out properly? Where does this end?

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... tml?page=1

Not exactly bushwalking related, but in a similar litigation 'blame game' vein
This article featured on Monday night on the ABC's 7.30 report
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/court-stops-p ... 2i6wt.html

While i sympathise with Mr Almario and his family, I agree with the court ruling that overturned his payout. It would have changed the whole way doctors have to approach each case.
You can blame everything you want for obesity, but in the end, it's you, the indivual, and only you, that has total control over what you put in your mouth.

[GPSGuided]

Spread blames around lead to more expensive goods and services but a bigger kitty for legal expenditures and more work for lawyers and insurance companies. Economy gets bigger and the cycle turns again.

So pathetic!

The real annoyance to me is the courts. Why are rulings repeatedly overturned? Can't they rule properly the first time? Right to appeal does not mean sloppy judgements are permitted.

[wayno]

certainly food for thought.
maybe the italians are like the americans , right into charging everyone and anyone for anything and sueing left right and centre.
doesnt mean australian justice system will take the same approach and charge everyone who ever touched the devices.
seemed over the top to go after so many people, especially the shop. you buy the gear in good faith from the supplier , and take it out of the box and put it on the shelf , i woudnt expect those shops feel they have to scrutinese the gear to the nth degree, its failure of quality control at the factory that is the biggest issue, we expect quality control to be done before an item leaves the factory ....

[GPSGuided]

Logic can be a dangerous thing. Strictly by logic, one can argue that shop owners have a certain level of expertise in the field and have certain level of responsibility to select and offer safe goods to their customers. Not 100% liability but proportional along that duty of care line. Taking a step back, I would hate to live in a society that blames all, apart from expected self responsibility.

[wayno]

most climbing gear in outdoor shops tends to be quality gear, these items would have been ok if they had been assembled properly. perhaps the shops have become too complacent about the gear they receive because it doesnt tend to fail...
certainly at least double failure at the factory, the assembler and the Quality control...


on the subject of risk vs safety

http://www.adventure-journal.com/2013/0 ... to-sharks/

[neilmny]

i just read a couple of interesting articles

http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from- ... n=08272013

Among those charged is the owner of the company that produced the rubber keepers without instructions, and the owner of the gear shop that sold the keepers. The manager of the club that organized the climbing trip, as well as two of the instructors who were on site, have also been charged for failing to monitor the assembly of the equipment.
My bold in the above quote. Food for thought - so in effect they are saying that a person who sells a piece of euipment is at fault if it's used incorrectly. Or is it more that he sold a piece of gear that didn't have correct instructions? That puts a large amount of responsibility on the retailer. Does each sales assistant also need to check each item has the correct instructions? How can they check if someone reads it? or carries the instructions out properly? Where does this end?

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... tml?page=1

Not exactly bushwalking related, but in a similar litigation 'blame game' vein
This article featured on Monday night on the ABC's 7.30 report
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/court-stops-p ... 2i6wt.html

While i sympathise with Mr Almario and his family, I agree with the court ruling that overturned his payout. It would have changed the whole way doctors have to approach each case.
You can blame everything you want for obesity, but in the end, it's you, the indivual, and only you, that has total control over what you put in your mouth.

Firstly they blame all to make sure they atleast get someone.
The same situation applies to designers of machinery, everyone in the chain is at risk of litigation
in an accident or injurious failure.

On the other hand 8 out of 10 quality control errors is pathetic.

Couldn't agree more about the claim against the GP. Another classic example of blaming someone else for
the individuals own failure to take proper care. How to stay healthy in general terms is not a big secret
there is mountains of information about it.

[Gusto]

I read the climbing one and was confused as I only know quick draws to look like this. Without any 'rubber keepers'. As you can see there is no part of the device that is considerably weaker than the rest. So it would be impossible to assemble this incorrectly.


Having read futher articles http://climbingnarc.com/2013/07/quickdraw-like-those-from-tito-traversas-accident/ http://www.pinnacleheightsafety.com.au/index.php/blog/article/the_danger_of_rubber_keepers_on_slings and
http://climbingnarc.com/2010/06/accident-at-new-river-gorge-offers-learning-experience/

I see that there are other types of quick draws that seem to have this additional rubber band that is meant to be used in addition to fabric loop. But I can see how this could be potentially confusing. So I am actually of the opinion that there should be warnings on the tag of the equipment.

I am an Outdoors guide and have done some climbing activities. I definitely see this as the fault of the guides for not checking their equipment and for not instructing propper usage of them. As for the shop, I don't think they are at fault unless they provided advice on how it should be used. As for the gear manufacturer they should also be supplying a warning/safety card with their products. That's common when buying a harness etc.

Having said that I wasn't there. I don't know what was or wasn't done. So my comments above should really be taken with a grain of salt

[wayno]

this site has set up the quick draws as they may have been setup incorrectly

http://climbingnarc.com/2013/07/quickdr ... -accident/

[wayno]

at the end of the day the boys father should shoulder some of the responsibility, he's letting his son take part in a dangerous activity, he should be overseeing all his gear or making sure someone else with the appropriate knowledge is overseeing everything properly. if you knew much about quick draws you'd know that that wasnt a standard setup and you'd be checking with someone else as to what the correct setup should be. logic tells you if you just look at that setup, you shouldnt be trusting all your weight to a little rubber band like that...

[ryantmalone]

i just read a couple of interesting articles

http://www.outsideonline.com/news-from- ... n=08272013

Among those charged is the owner of the company that produced the rubber keepers without instructions, and the owner of the gear shop that sold the keepers. The manager of the club that organized the climbing trip, as well as two of the instructors who were on site, have also been charged for failing to monitor the assembly of the equipment.
My bold in the above quote. Food for thought - so in effect they are saying that a person who sells a piece of euipment is at fault if it's used incorrectly. Or is it more that he sold a piece of gear that didn't have correct instructions? That puts a large amount of responsibility on the retailer. Does each sales assistant also need to check each item has the correct instructions? How can they check if someone reads it? or carries the instructions out properly? Where does this end?

During my time working for a large outdoor retailer, I can assure you that whenever I sold gear that could potentially put someones life at risk if used incorrectly, that questions were asked about whether it was the right piece of gear or not. If not, then recommendations were made as to the right piece of gear, however in this day and age, people are all whilly nilly to pay as less as possible, even if the gear is crap.

Having said that, I think that there is a duty of care by the retailers to make sure that the right gear is recommended, however they should never be held accountable unless bad advice is given. If the retailer told that the piece of gear could hold his weight, then they should be accountable to an extent.

However, I'd say that the majority of fault should be on the organizers and the instructors. It should always be up to them to ensure that the right gear is used for the trip, and that all people are safe. I don't understand what part the retailer has. They are not instructors, they are simply sales advisers.

[Hallu]

They didn't sue everyone for the sake of it, they just wanted to make sense of their son's death. It's probably the lawyer who advised the family to sue everybody. When something like that happens, you're always trying to blame it on someone, it's not about the money. In that case what caused the accident is a combination of factors. It's pretty clear that the use of the rubber keepers wasn't that straightforward, although it is strange that such a famous newcomer to the climbing scene didn't know it. So the first one to blame should be the one who checked the equipment, the instructors are obviously at fault here. I'm sure that now that people have seen this problem, shops selling it will warn their customers, or that at least a warning will be issued on the packaging.

[wayno]

tramper died on the routeburn , the family put pressure on the authorities to try and prosecute a doc ranger. not sure how strong the evidence was, the ranger was supposed to have allegedly discussed a supposed shortcut on the track and it was believed that the tramper had taken the supposed shortcut based on the advice she was allegedly given
Another ranger told me, there was no recognised shortcut , its highly unlikely that the ranger would have recommended anything like that, it was between mackenzie hut and ocean view corner she had taken a direct line between the two and fell off a bluff and died....
so i dont know how the family got it into their head about the advice, the track is clearly cut, its pretty hard to go wrong even in bad visibility...
in the end nothing was proven
partly as a result of the case doc rangers are forbidden from discussing any unofficial routes, they can only give advice about official doc tracks

[GPSGuided]

They didn't sue everyone for the sake of it, they just wanted to make sense of their son's death. It's probably the lawyer who advised the family to sue everybody. When something like that happens, you're always trying to blame it on someone, it's not about the money.

The common justification for ensuing legal wrangles is, we don't want the same to happen to someone else. All sounding morally justified apart for the invariable innocent collateral damages.

[Grabeach]

Two comments:-

1. Re quickdraws. Something that design engineers are taught (or were back in my day) is that for reliability the simplest design is often the best. After a product has been around a while, the initial design will invariably be altered. Typically there will be an increase in complexity, often with an eye to marketability, but far too many times no real improvement. I would question why a rubber ring had any place on such a piece of equipment. As an aside, the complexity of some descending devices, that can be bought over the counter by anyone (I doubt there is even an age limit on who can purchase) amazes me.

2. Re advice. In the past, like many others, I have been quite free in passing on infromation on the existance and location of obscure / forgotten passes through cliff lines in walking areas around Sydney. One wonders whether this was wise from a legal liability position.

[Mark F]

A couple of comments:
1. Legal logic does not always equate with "common sense" logic. This applies throughout the world.
2. Italian law is rather problematic in that it often ascribes guilt the "wrong" party to a transaction. For instance if you purchase a counterfeit (eg fake Gucci handbag) article you will be prosecuted rather than the vendor. Similarly if a retailer fails to provide you with a receipt then you can be charged with tax avoidance. Many tourists have come to grief after totally innocent and naive purchases.

[wayno]

hmm i'm starting to wonder about all that Gucci hiking gear i bought in Italy now....

[GPSGuided]

I prefer and do LV packs for that reason.