Aaron wrote :If there was any truth to this, every hockey rink and baseball diamond would have shut down years ago.

Aaron,
With all due respect.
The hockey game and ski hill and climbing gym and so force have a applied agreement that states all risk to yourself and what limit you have on suing because of your personial responsibilties you have agreed to in the waiver you signed. In a natural park which the city creates needs also have a waiver that outlines all risk and responsiblities of the user to be free of actions brought against the city.

Kinda like a ball diamond with slick grass or a hockey goal post that is held to the ice to firm. They need to be able to prove you understood the risks and excepted the risk as all blame to yourself.

Thats why it says that on your ticket to the ball game.

Cheers

Fred W wrote: I can’t believe I wasted my time reading this post.
I can’t believe you wasted your time posting!

The District is liable for what it provides. If they pave a road poorly, for example, and damages occur as a result of reasonable use of that road under the rational expectation that paved roads are safe etc etc, they could be liable

Are sure that a new climbing area does not fit in that model. I think it does. New trails and so on. If you are on a ski hill and collide with a rock in the middle of the hill that should have been marked the hill will be paying so where do you draw that line in climbing???? Where is the city or town going to be able to prove that the hazard (what ever that could be) should not have been marked? The new trail again is a good example.

The District is liable for what it provides. If they pave a road poorly, for example, and damages occur as a result of reasonable use of that road under the rational expectation that paved roads are safe etc etc, they could be liable (though this will also depend on other factors. This is why they have insurance up the ass). In the case of the Bluffs, the District merely maintains (to some extent) the trails, signs, parking lot, etc. It has nothing to do with the climbing routes or anchors.

After you start to build a park (change) you need to have markers for everybody to see and understand the changes. By changing the park to promote Squamish as a climbing destination they need to protect themselves from people coming from all around just to climb (thinking it’s and outdoor gym) because of that fantastic trail system they built for climbers.  The town should have an obligation to have safe secure anchors for belays. They have added to the park for climbers, without excepting the risk of the climbers. That would most likley not fly in court.

Aaron’s right on this one.

In a climbing gym situation (or an ice rink) the gym or rink is only liable for what it provides, for which it has a duty of care.  So if you are in the gym, and a hold breaks off and smashes you in the head, you could theoretically claim damages.  But you make a retarded move bouldering and break your leg falling w/o spotter, tough sh*t.  Similarly, if you are playing hockey and the zamboni driver was on crack and there are massive pot-holes in the ice, and you break your leg in one, yes, the rink could be liable.  If you get your leg broken in a hockey game (depending on context) probably no dice.

The District is liable for what it provides.  If they pave a road poorly, for example, and damages occur as a result of reasonable use of that road under the rational expectation that paved roads are safe etc etc, they could be liable (though this will also depend on other factors.  This is why they have insurance up the ass).  In the case of the Bluffs, the District merely maintains (to some extent) the trails, signs, parking lot, etc.  It has nothing to do with the climbing routes or anchors.

Kinnikinik wrote:Urban planners/lawyers think little of the intricacies of climbing ethics. The cleaning a crack to install gear does not provide a facility,and from a legal perspective is simply some wackjob disturbing a plant community, possibly illegally.

The cleaning of a route to attract people is a facility (the climb)

A City particularily in a park is held to a higher standard than joe public and may not be protected by occupiers liability act with regard to provided facilities. Bolts installed within a park could certainly be considered a facility which facillitates and encourages rock-climbing.

So does a new trail for climbers just as much as the bolts without either you cannot climb (in the eyes of many)

As soon as you get the City to do anything regarding bolts you open the door for the city to be liable for accidents that involve the bolts. It would have to be proved however that the bolts or their placement contributed directly to the damages incurred.

The trail and the bolts that have been placed change the whole game. They become liable because one would be able to show they should have been able to rely on bolted stations like all the other climbs they had climbed over the last month.

The change (the new trail system) is all that is needed. It shows intent to attract climbers as a city park with benchs and the works. Including a new toilet!

imo, I like the new trails and clearing efforts, thanks to those involved.  It’ll look over-done for a season but will quickly grow in to less invasive visually.  also, thanks to thosed involved with the scrubbing/ retro-fitting and new routing that’s been going on in the Bluffs, great to see the revival of the area.