mattp

Mike - Post a picture on this site in the gallery section or post it on your own website (or someone else's) and then insert the link using the "Instant UBB Code" feature below the message window when you are composing. 600x800 to 800x1200 sized images work well on most people's desktops.

quote: Originally posted by HeadSpace: a old rusty pin and a star drive bolt, yuk! Not very many years ago, we would have thought that sounded pretty good.

quote: Originally posted by Retrosaurus: Water ice ain't water ice until it's vertical. ????

Caveman is going to be giving lap dances.

Forrest - For the most part, I have come to see the possibility of ambulance-chasing as a necessary evil in our system of justice. There are those who are unscrupulous in any endeavor and while some would argue that attorney's have less scruples than other professionals, the fact is that an attorney who takes advantage of his or her clients or regularly brings frivolous lawsuits has to be pretty damn quick on their feet to get away with it because they are exposing themselves to disciplinary action with the Bar Association (five attorneys in Washington lost their license this month) and they also face professional malpractice/fraud and other monetary damage claims. More clearly focused efforts to root out corrupt or usurious attorneys may be in order, and there may be some need for tort reform, but in my experience a lot of the people who complain about the trial lawyer's strangle hold on our economy are the same people who argue that it is socialistic to regulate the economy and we should let the free market handle everything. We attorney's are poorly misunderstood and it is the insurance companies and tobacco venders that promote the idea that we are taking advantage of widows and orphans in order to ruin your life. Rodchester- I agree with the idea that climbing is a dangerous activity and that all of us should be required to accept the risk that we take. I would not agree, however, that there should NEVER be any liability for a climbing guide or an equipment manufacturer or even a climbing partner. The bar should be very high, but there is some point at which it is no longer a question of the climber taking responsibility for the risks they knowingly embrace, but a question of whether the vendor, guide, or climbing partner acted with such a high debree if irresponsibly that they should be liable.

When I climbed the north ridge at this time of year it was not really any more difficult than when I climbed it mid-season a few years later. In the Fall, there was an approach pitch on 35 degree ice that was mostly snow midsummer, but the steeper pitch was just about the same. Like Chips said, most crevasses or 'schrunds are not all that much of a problem if you are expecting them (just don't let one sneak up from behind and pounce on your neck) and there were none of any terrible consequence on the North Ridge.

We used to jump from a train tressle into the river. The thing was to stand in a line on the rail as a train was coming, and see who could be the last one to jump off. The engineers loved this!

Rodchester - I agree. It seems to me that it is either government regulation or accountability must be maintained through something like our tort system. Mitch indicates that a 30% contingency fee may seem outrageous in personal injury cases. I used to think so too, until I had the priviledge of sharing an office with a personal injury attorney (my own practice has nothing to do with this). What I see is that Richard works very hard, and has to put out literally thousands of dollars up front in persuing a claim, often against an insurance company that is willing to deny all claims even if the liability is beyond question. I have learned that if I was ever in a car accident where the other driver was at fault, my own insurance company would almost certainly balk at even paying for my basic medical care -- and even that would be cut off after a relatively short period of time -- and the other driver's insurance company would deny all payments unless I was able to hire an attorney with a sufficient "war chest" and sufficient stamina to go the full yardage. In a word, I WANT my attorney in this situation to be "rich" and I would hope that he or she doesn't have to "earn" their 30% but I would not begrudge them for it. After all, if they lose (and even the most "certain" case is still a gamble), they get nothing but the bills.

Tread Tramp is right - we are only speculating about what Erden may be intending to do. Let's take a discussion of the mermits of the tort system over to Spray.

Retrosaurus wrote: Weird. Making a legal case, and why? Paul detrick wrote: I don't see the legal connection, I thought people just wanted to know what happen, so it could be avoided next time. Retrosaurus: Smells like money. Figger Eight: IF carabiners are failing at loads less than their claimed kn limit...might there be a case? Rodchester: If you mean could Erden have a case...the plain answer is no. The court s would not consider Erden to have been harmed. If you mean could Kropp have a case...the answer is pretty much no. Two legal theories could be used as a basis fo suit. First, that Erden did something wrong negligence theory) and second that the biner manufacturer produced a defective product products liability theory). Niether of these would get to the jury for various reasons. The highest hurdle being what attorney's call a "per se" bar to suit. Not to get into this in to much boaring legal detail, but here goes: In Wash (and most states) we have adopted what is called Restatement (Torts) Second section 520 and 523. Under 520, I believe that climbing is what is termed an Abnormally Dangerous Activity (these usually involve heights, fire, or water). If one participates in an abnormaly dangerous activity knowingly (surely Kropp knew of the dangers of climbing) then he is found to have accepted the risks under 523. The is what is called a "per se" bar to suit....in otherwords there is no liability. There are some minor excepts, fraud, duress, and extremely unusual situations may be argued to over come 523. I've never really found any cases that do so. This is certainly not one to do so. Suits involving climbing are very rare and are almost universally thrown out by the bench judge). Some suits are settled on what the insurance companies call nuisance amounts (just make it go away) or for a cost of defense amount. This is the quick and dirty and is not meant to be legal advice to anyone, just my reading of the law. I'm just a climber. Retrosaurus: Originally posted by Figger Eight: IF carabiners are failing at loads less than their claimed kn limit...might there be a case? And wouldn't that be great? And if you fuck up... might you die? It is obvious to me that multiple things went wrong in this accident. Is the purpose of this "investigation" to determine cause, thereby increasing knowlege and safety, or to fix blame (as in building a case $$$)? Some of the recent language suggests the latter. I hope not. Too much of the price of US-made products (and services) is already passed directly on to insurance companies and lawyers. Mitch - I agree with you that fears of liability raise the price of or maybe even slow the development of things like climbing equipment, but on the other hand I would have to say that if it turned out that some party was in some way hugely responsible for this death, I wouldn't be against holding them financially responsible to some degree. For exampe, I have no idea what will turn out to be the facts of this case, but suppose that the rope was a static rope and that the manufacturers/distributors knowingly sold it to consumers in such a manner that it could be expected that the consumers would use it for climbing without being able to tell the difference between it (an unsafe rope) and a static one (safer). Suppose further, that the investigation revealed that the pro would not have failed had it not been for the use of a static rope. And suppose that the widow was now going to be completely unable to support herself. All of this is a longshot, and you may say a preposterous one, but in this case I bet Rodchester's "per se" bar would be overcome. Wouldn't it be reasonable to hold the manufacturer/distributor somewhat responsible in a case like this? If you believe that our legal system should support public safety, you may believe in some restriction of "greedy trial lawyers" or some regulation of our tort system (lawsuits), but the only alternative way to encourage the manufacturer/distributor to be more careful would probably be greater government regulation, something that I bet you are equally against (yes, I'm putting words in your mouth). Alternatively, one might say let the "fee market" takek care of it. I suppose that the word might spread that such-and-such a dealer has insufficient concern for public safety, but then they could address this by simply pulling the product and their sales would probably not be all that badly affected (suppose, for example, it was a well established supplier like REI). -Matt [ 10-29-2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: mattp ]

Oh, and perhaps we might start another thread if anyone wants to debate the merits of the tort system. I'll copy my post over to Spray.

Mitch - I agree with you that fears of liability raise the price of or maybe even slow the development of things like climbing equipment, but on the other hand I would have to say that if it turned out that some party was in some way hugely responsible for this death, I wouldn't be against holding them financially responsible to some degree. For exampe, I have no idea what will turn out to be the facts of this case, but suppose that the rope was a static rope and that the manufacturers/distributors knowingly sold it to consumers in such a manner that it could be expected that the consumers would use it for climbing without being able to tell the difference between it (an unsafe rope) and a static one (safer). Suppose further, that the investigation revealed that the pro would not have failed had it not been for the use of a static rope. And suppose that the widow was now going to be completely unable to support herself. All of this is a longshot, and you may say a preposterous one, but in this case I bet Rodchester's "per se" bar would be overcome. Wouldn't it be reasonable to hold the manufacturer/distributor somewhat responsible in a case like this? If you believe that our legal system should support public safety, you may believe in some restriction of "greedy trial lawyers" or some regulation of our tort system (lawsuits), but the only alternative way to encourage the manufacturer/distributor to be more careful would probably be greater government regulation, something that I bet you are equally against (yes, I'm putting words in your mouth). Alternatively, one might say let the "fee market" takek care of it. I suppose that the word might spread that such-and-such a dealer has insufficient concern for public safety, but then they could address this by simply pulling the product and their sales would probably not be all that badly affected (suppose, for example, it was a well established supplier like REI). -Matt

Enjoy!

We get this every year. "Is the Coleman-Demming route still open?" ... "No way - my friend's sister-in-law turned back at 8,500' last week because it was totally blocked by a big crevasse." ... "Yeah, but I climbed it with only ski poles. It is casual, dude." The answer to your question depends on you. It has been several seasons since I've been there at this time of the year, and my last mid-season trip led me to conclude that the Coleman has opened up somewhat over the years, but I have climbed both the Coleman-Demming and the North Ridge in October/November, and had absolutely no problem either time. (We did not have to climb down into and back out of any crevasses, though there were some rather interesting "bridges.") Even with no current information of any kind, I bet there is not more than one or two troublesome crevasses and, if you are in fact able to to "climb up and down ice," probably not even that. Be aware, though, that this is perhaps the most dangerous time of the year for crevasse falls. Fresh snowbridges, unstable weather (and likely poor visibility), coupled with short daylight ...

I don't disagree with Bronco, but a light-weight synthetic overbag would pair up with your down bag to make a winning combination. When you put a down bag inside a thin synthetic one, the frost weatening and the moisture that doesn't make it out from the inside ends up in the synthetic bag, which is easier to dry out and less affected by becoming wet. This combo will be slightly heavier and bulkier than the warmer down bag alone, but it works very well - particularly for extended trips.

sorry about the double post. [ 10-25-2002, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: mattp ]

Goran's accident is startling, yes, but it has not caused me to suddenly doubt the dynamic capability of my ropes or my judgment as to the bomberness of a piece of pro. Because of the nature of the rock, I always doubted the quality of gear placed in those cracks over at Vantage anyway, and the actual number of instances in which I've heard of someone breaking gear is still extremely low (though I noted already that I have broken a biner before). [ 10-25-2002, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: mattp ]

quote: Originally posted by chucK: So you guys don't buy the argument/fear that the stretched out rope will blow away the bomber piece (as apparently happened to Goran) since the rope is now static? In a word: no. And even so, I'd still put the screamer on the questionnable piece because if I thought it was totally worthless I would skip it entirely, but if I only think it is questionnable I want to give it as much chance of holding me as possible. Again - I do not remember ever pulling what I thought was a bomber piece but I have worried about (and even occasionally pulled) sketchy pro lots of times.

In another thread, somebody postulated that the discussion was "cut" because it degenerated into some threats of violence. If that is the case, I might agree with you about cutting the offending post rather than the entire thread, but I won't criticize the decision to terminate the thread. By the way, I note that I don't recall you resorting to threats or obscenity -- even though it is a hotly charged topic and one that is very personal to you. Thumbs up.

In another thread, somebody postulated that the discussion was "cut" because it degenerated into some threats of violence. If that is the case, I might agree with you about cutting the offending post rather than the entire thread, but I won't criticize the decision to terminate the thread. By the way, I note that I don't recall you resorting to threats or obscenity -- even though it is a hotly charged topic and one that is very personal to you. Thumbs up.

That must have been what caused it. Oh well. I have work to do, anyway.

On the questionnable piece, of course. I don't remember the last time I fell and pulled a piece that I thought was "bomber" and I may never have done so.

quote: Originally posted by ehmmic: I've been thinking Not to be snide, but maybe you're thinking too much. You propose an interesting calculation, perhaps, but your rope is fine. Take a look at the last twenty years' worth of "Accidents in North American Mountaineering" and you will not find many (or any?) incidents where something like your 9.6 failed and a 10 would have held - or even an 11. Ropes almost always break because they are cut by something and pieces fail in normal free-climbing situations because the rock broke or the placement was poor.

Have you seen his "presentation" on this topic?

quote: Originally posted by fern: ropes may be hard to break, but biners are not. Yes, I have broken a 'biner. But here again, Mr. Haireball is right here: if you are taking those kinds of falls (falls that generate forces sufficient to break carabiners), you are probably doing something wrong. It is true that serious aid climbs require one to risk big falls with complex rope and protection scenarios where weird things can happen, but most accidents where equipment fails are accidents where it was somehow used incorrectly. Focus not on the dimension of your rope or the strength of your 'biners, but on placing good protection and avoiding leader falls on anything less than unquestionnable pro with a fall-zone free of things that might hurt you.