Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[M_Sprague]

I though NH was similar, but I am not a lawyer. Even if it gets thrown out, defending your self could be expensive and I bet their insurance company would raise a stink.

[z.st.jules]

I though NH was similar, but I am not a lawyer. Even if it gets thrown out, defending your self could be expensive and I bet their insurance company would raise a stink.

He did mention his insurance being a main factor in why he can't allow people there anymore.
Why couldn't he just put a climb at your own risk sign. Would that not take care of the
problem?

[apbt1976]

I though NH was similar, but I am not a lawyer. Even if it gets thrown out, defending your self could be expensive and I bet their insurance company would raise a stink.

He did mention his insurance being a main factor in why he can't allow people there anymore.
Why couldn't he just put a climb at your own risk sign. Would that not take care of the
problem?

If it is a insurance thing you really can not blame the guy. Insurance companies really just suck all around!

I have a dog that makes getting home owners a real son of a bitch. I am not complaining as i knew it would be a PITA before i got the dog. All kinds of stupid rules "signs, fencing blah blah blah" if i want the policy upheld in the event something ever happened involving my dog on my property.

If someone else's dumb ass dog runs up in my yard it still ends up my problem and that person could sue me. Freaking crazy shit. I say his property his liability his call, cant blame him really if that's the case. I know i don't wanna risk loosing everything i have worked for and put my trust in random people.

[eyebolter]

I think in New Hampshire it is called "current use," and if you have your property in it (lower taxes) you have to allow recreational use.

In Massachusetts we have  statute called "Limitation of lability for landowners allowing recreational use" or something like that.  Basically, if you let people use your land you cannot be sued in the absence of "willful, wanton, or reckless conduct." Nobody has been sued in Mass for getting hurt climbing as far as I know because of the statute, but it of course does not protect you 100%

[lucky luke]

you cannot be sued in the absence of "willful, wanton, or reckless conduct."

Yes, but you can be sued in presence of willfull, wanton or recdkless conduct. In a case, it is not always that one party don't want to pay for his fault. it is that you have to decide if it is a fault or not.

How much it cost to be sue?

[slevasse]

I think in New Hampshire it is called "current use," and if you have your property in it (lower taxes) you have to allow recreational use.

Actually just double checked this...Owners are allowed to post no trespassing signs on their current use property but receive even more of a tax discount for allowing access.

[DMan]

...I hope that we can make the distinction about trad... and sport...

And there it is again.

With zero details as to what happened Champ has brought it full circle to the differences between trad and sport.

Bravo good man... bravo...

[DMan]

...I hope that we can make the distinction about trad... and sport...

And there it is again.

With zero details as to what happened Champ has brought it full circle to the differences between trad and sport.

Bravo good man... bravo...

[M_Sprague]

You guys should get some boxing gloves.

[sneoh]

How much it cost to be sue?

Way, way too much in the US of A.
Besides, you are talking about massive amount of time spent and a high level of stress ....

[M_Sprague]

You can blow $25-30 thousand in a blink of an eye on lawyers, and then it is up from there.

[erikeisele]

Funny, the Access Fund's policy director is actually in North Conway this weekend. We had lunch at the Moat today, and I told him we don't have access problems in the Mount Washington Valley because the climbing is all on public land. So I guess this is my fault...

I'm a regional coordinator for the Access Fund, so maybe I can be of some help on this. z.st.jules — Can you shoot me a note or a private message or something? I'd like to find out more about your interaction. Anyone else who has had a similar experience there, or anyone who knows more about the lawsuit the landowner spoke of, I would appreciate if you would also shoot me a note.
Once I have more information I'll touch base with the AF headquarters. then I'll give the property owner a call and see what his situation is. Maybe we can salvage this whole thing.

New Hampshire has a similar law to Maine, by the way: RSA 212:34 protects landowners from liability when no fee is charged for recreating on their land. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XVIII/212/212-34.htm The Department of Fish and Game usually reference the law when talking about hunters, but it applies to other forms of recreation as well.

[lucky luke]

I told him we don't have access problems in the Mount Washington Valley because the climbing is all on public land.

You don't have the problem yet. I think that bolting is not allowed in the white mountain any more.

As Slovasse said

Owners are allowed to post no trespassing signs on their current use property but receive even more of a tax discount for allowing access

So, we have a proof that the owner make money when they give access to there proprerty. They place bolt on the cliff, so it is a control activity. The climber fail as the bolt turn in the spit is the careless situation. We can sue some one with that.

I agree that a found access is good for sport. If you buy the cliff, you still have to pay in insurance and you will need money to do it. You will ask for money at the entry of the cliff as they do in Kamouraska in Quebec. You will have a budget, etc. this is great for sport climbing.

The point is: if there is no bolt and hiking trail...just the cliff. How can you sue a owner because he keep his cliff natural. What mistake do he make if a piece of rock fail.  A bad bolt is a clear evidence that the owner don't take care of his site, but a natural one...like Mt Washington... there is no mistake.

Except for the guide. If you guide some one, you have the responsability of your client. For a very long time, there is two kind of guide: those who bring you in a very restricted area (gym, some sport cliff) and those who bring you in the mountain. Those who don't take risk and those who show you how to avoid the danger of the mountain.

My climbing career is coming to an end (not yet Dman  ) . I'm getting hold I think. For me, I will be able to find enought challenge in remote area to my plaisir. I just feel sorry for the young who will have to go trought an access found association to find a cliff where they will be allow to climb, when the solution of making a distinction for insurance and land is so easy.       

[DMan]

Kinda off topic but something Champ said made me think of it. In Austria there are laws on the books that state a more experienced climber is legally responsible for a less experienced climber. If something bad happens, the experienced climber can be tried on negligence and even serve jail time. There are better articles about this recent incident explaining the law but I don’t have time to find them right now:

http://unofficialnetworks.com/man-jailed-accidentally-killing-wife-avalanche-53343/

I’ve always felt that the “leader” in a climbing group is responsible for the whole party, guided or not. Shit does happen in the mountains though, so only incidents of gross negligence should incur any penalty.

[M_Sprague]

I told him we don't have access problems in the Mount Washington Valley because the climbing is all on public land.

You don't have the problem yet. I think that bolting is not allowed in the white mountain any more.

As Slovasse said

Owners are allowed to post no trespassing signs on their current use property but receive even more of a tax discount for allowing access

So, we have a proof that the owner make money when they give access to there proprerty. They place bolt on the cliff, so it is a control activity. The climber fail as the bolt turn in the spit is the careless situation. We can sue some one with that.

I agree that a found access is good for sport. If you buy the cliff, you still have to pay in insurance and you will need money to do it. You will ask for money at the entry of the cliff as they do in Kamouraska in Quebec. You will have a budget, etc. this is great for sport climbing.

The point is: if there is no bolt and hiking trail...just the cliff. How can you sue a owner because he keep his cliff natural. What mistake do he make if a piece of rock fail.  A bad bolt is a clear evidence that the owner don't take care of his site, but a natural one...like Mt Washington... there is no mistake.

Except for the guide. If you guide some one, you have the responsability of your client. For a very long time, there is two kind of guide: those who bring you in a very restricted area (gym, some sport cliff) and those who bring you in the mountain. Those who don't take risk and those who show you how to avoid the danger of the mountain.

My climbing career is coming to an end (not yet Dman  ) . I'm getting hold I think. For me, I will be able to find enought challenge in remote area to my plaisir. I just feel sorry for the young who will have to go trought an access found association to find a cliff where they will be allow to climb, when the solution of making a distinction for insurance and land is so easy.     

Champ - a few points:

Bolting is allowed in the Whites, just not in the designated wilderness portion.
Also, getting a tax break from the government is not the same thing as charging money from users of your property, which then creates a contract. If the land were to be bought by climbers/ access fund, it would then most likely be given to the national forest like Rumney was, or could be controlled by a private non profit like the Pendergrass-Murray Recreational Preserve in Kentucky which would be supported by donations not fees.