Climbing death near Denver might lead to more restrictions
Rich Kulawiec
were climbing on land belonging to Martin-Mariettta without permission,
without safety gear, without training, and apparently without much common
sense. The friend was rescued via helicopter, and the story has been
played up heavily by most of the Front Range media. (Another climber,
apparently with experience/training/proper gear, took a serious fall in
the Horsetooth area outside Ft. Collins, but survived as far as I know.)
There have been subsequent calls for regulation and/or restrictions,
as might be expected given all the publicity.
---Rsk
George Scott
>A climber fell to his death earlier this week near Denver. He and a friend
>were climbing on land belonging to Martin-Mariettta without permission,
>without safety gear, without training, and apparently without much common
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>sense.
^^^^^
FLAME ON:
So what makes this guy a climber? He sounds to me like another hiker who got
in over his head.
>There have been subsequent calls for regulation and/or restrictions,
>as might be expected given all the publicity.
For starters, how about a ban on all hikers leaving the desiginated trails?
( :-) ).
Unfortunately, the general public can't see a difference between a hiker and
a climber. Here in the mountains there are plenty of opportunities to kill
yourself - you can just walk off the edge of a scenic overlook on the highway,
for example. No amount of regulation is going to protect the idiots of the
world from themselves. Meanwhile, the climbing community is tired of taking
the heat for all these 'climbers'.
FLAME OFF.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George N. Scott EMAIL: geo...@wind55.seri.gov
Wind Research Branch. VOICE: 303-231-7667
Solar Energy Research Institute 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393
Bill Putnam
> A climber fell to his death earlier this week near Denver. He and a friend
> were climbing on land belonging to Martin-Mariettta without permission,
> without safety gear, without training, and apparently without much common
> sense.
It always bothers me when the victims of these kinds of accidents are
described as climbers. It sounds more like a couple of random individuals
with no climbing experience and little common sense. Unfortunately, the
non-climbing public can't generally distinguish between actual climbers
and ignoramuses who happen to fall off of cliffs.
The same problem occurs in caving - anyone who gets hurt in or rescued from
a cave is invariably described as a caver, when, in fact, the vast majority
are kids, ignoramuses, or drunks who just decided to go into a cave.
Reading "Tom Sawyer" or buying a case of Bud and a can of spray paint does
not make one a caver - it makes one a statistic.
Accidents in North American Mountaineering (published by the AAC) and
American Caving Accidents (published by the NSS) are full of similar
incidents every year. Almost all are attributable to ignorance and poor
judgement.
I don't think that the public should be persuaded that climbing and caving
are not without inherent risk - I just wish they could understand that it
takes skill and training and proper equipment, and that we aren't all just
irresponsible derelicts.
Bill Putnam
put...@ics.gatech.edu
Rich Kulawiec
>r...@oldfield.cs.colostate.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>
>>A climber fell to his death earlier this week near Denver. He and a friend
>>were climbing on land belonging to Martin-Mariettta without permission,
>>without safety gear, without training, and apparently without much common
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>sense.
> ^^^^^
>So what makes this guy a climber? He sounds to me like another hiker who got
>in over his head.
What makes him a "climber" is that he was engaging in the activity of
"climbing" when he got himself killed. I don't know if he thought he
was a "climber" or not. And I don't think it's really relevant to the
point that I was attempting to make: the general public will think of
this person as a "climber", more specifically a "dead climber",
regardless of the outcome of whatever semantic debate you and I
and others might engage in.
---Rsk.
Tom Harper
>FLAME ON:
...Expresses my sentiments....
>FLAME OFF.
Here is where George and I disagree. This attempt to impose restrictions
on me for activities that I understand are with risk frustrate me enough
that I leave the candle burning.
Calling people like these climbers is like saying that someone that crashes
and burns on the freeway at 100+ miles an hour is a race car driver. Why
does the news have to sensationalize everything? Too bad news is a profitable
product.
Tom harper t...@hpda.hp.com
Scott Thurston
%
%Calling people like these climbers is like saying that someone that crashes
%and burns on the freeway at 100+ miles an hour is a race car driver. Why
%does the news have to sensationalize everything? Too bad news is a profitable
%product.
%
Why, indeed. Possibly because the press knows that a race car driver is usually
in a specialized vehicle, wearing a helmet, at a racetrack, etc. The press
makes no distinction between what you and I call a climber, and anyone who
happens to climb on a rock. Most journalists drive cars. How many of them are
"climbers"?
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
| Scott Thurston ...!uunet!sequent!scottie |
| Sequent Computer Systems, Inc |
| Beaverton, OR Disclaimer: I used to be sane, but I got better. |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
| SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! ... No one expects the Spamish Repetition! |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Bill Poser
and shouldn't taint those of us who know what we are doing, but there
is a much deeper issue here. It simply isn't "the public's" business
that people do dangerous things. Even if climbing is dangerous, where
do people get the right to restrict it? What really bothers me about
proposals for regulation of climbing (other than those necessary to protect
the environment) is not the excessively dangerous image of climbing on
which they are based but the fascist attitude that underlies them.
And this is the aspect to which we should react most strong. Mountaineering
is, after all, "the freedom of the hills".
Bill
charles s. geiger, esq.
> So what makes this guy a climber? He sounds to me like another hiker
> who got in over his head.
> For starters, how about a ban on all hikers leaving the desiginated
> trails? ( :-) ).
When hikers start getting flamed and condescended to in rec.backcountry,
we should all recognize that it's time to create a new newsgroup.
This comment--along with all the technical talk that dominates
herein--has no place in a newsgroup called rec.backcountry.
Climbers, don't you want your own newsgroup anyway?
How does one start up a vote?
--
cheers, from
charles s. geiger, esq.
"Down with all kings but King Ludd" -- Byron
Tony Wesley
In my opinion, there are too many posts dealing with technical
climbing. I don't know nor do I care if Mt Clemens is a 5.11z.
Let the climbers have their own newsgroup.--
And little Sir John with his nut brown bowl Tony Wesley/RPT Software
And his brandy in the glass voice: (313) 274-2080
And little Sir John with his nut brown bowl awe...@unix.secs.oakland.edu
Proved the strongest man at last... Compu$erve: 72770,2053
George Scott
>In article <...>, geo...@wind55.seri.gov (George Scott) writes:
>> For starters, how about a ban on all hikers leaving the desiginated
>> trails? ( :-) ).
>When hikers start getting flamed and condescended to in rec.backcountry,
>we should all recognize that it's time to create a new newsgroup.
Hey, don't you recognize a smiley when you see one?
(And besides, if anybody's been getting flamed in r.b, it's climbers!)
Jeff Winslow
>
>When hikers start getting flamed and condescended to in rec.backcountry,
>we should all recognize that it's time to create a new newsgroup.
>This comment--along with all the technical talk that dominates
>herein--has no place in a newsgroup called rec.backcountry.
I do much more hiking these days than climbing. I didn't feel condescended to
or flamed by the remarks, and I disagree that technical talk is out of place
in a newsgroup called rec.backcountry.
I know *trails* that require technical expertise (ie, rappelling) to negotiate.
I also do *not* want to see climbing discussions separated from
rec.backcountry.
Why don't you relax and go have a beer instead?
Jeff Winslow
Alan L Pope
>
> When hikers start getting flamed and condescended to in rec.backcountry,
> we should all recognize that it's time to create a new newsgroup.
> This comment--along with all the technical talk that dominates
> herein--has no place in a newsgroup called rec.backcountry.
My guess is that the line you referred to as condescenion was just a poke
at the hikers / backpackers asking for a reduction in climbing talk. It
did have a smiley face after it.
Me? I want to keep the climbers around. Nope. I don't climb. Period.
Unless someone sticks a mountain directly under the trail instead of
over off the side of the trail. Even then, if I need a rope to get up
or to keep from falling off of it I`ll probably walk around. ;^)
When the climbing talk gets too thick it's easy enough to skip over or
"kill" it. Who knows, I might learn something.
Yah, like the man said, kick back and have a beer.
Alan Pope <alp...@Eng.Sun.COM>
Tom Harper
>When hikers start getting flamed and condescended to in rec.backcountry,
>we should all recognize that it's time to create a new newsgroup.
>This comment--along with all the technical talk that dominates
>herein--has no place in a newsgroup called rec.backcountry.
Since I seconded the offending posting, I feel that I owe you and anyone
else offended an apology. Certainly hikers (like climbers) come in all
varieties - some very competent and some at the other end of the scale.
Then there are the folks who aren't either one, but get written up as one
or the other, depending on the nature of their accident. I certainly did
not mean to second an implication that all hikers were scum or some such
thing and that Real Climbers were the only people that should be allowed
to go into the backcountry.
When I read the flame, I was thinking of the current attack climbing is
suffering. Every accident, whether it involves some moron who gets drunk
and falls off a cliff or J. SuperClimber, further endangers the existence
of the sport. I was focusing on this, not the use of the term "hiker".
To call anyone that walks down a trail a hiker is exactly the same problem
that the climbing community has to deal with. My guess is that the original
poster made the same slip. There are very few climbers that haven't at
one time or another been a member of the hiker clan. I have a hard time
seperating the two sometimes, but thats another subject.
The main problem of course is that people seem to be forgetting these days
that freedom to do various activities comes with the strings of responsibility
attached. The combination of this oversight and greed has created the
litigation monster, which may become society's autoclave.
So the intent of my seconding still holds - its very upsetting to see various
acts of incompetents be used as examples of why an admittedly dangerous
sport should be controlled or banned. Its even more upsetting to me that it
appears to be tied to money, not real concern. I would be just as upset if
a report of a "hiker", wearing only shorts and thongs, found dead in a side
gully of the Grand Canyon due to heat exhaustion, leads to some misguided
effort to close all but the maintained trails in the Canyon to hiking.
>Climbers, don't you want your own newsgroup anyway?
This has come up before. I for one would not like to see climbing split out
of rec.backcountry. I can think of two major reasons to keep the group as is.
The first is that there is a tremendous amount of overlap between
climbing-focused activities and hiking-focused activities. Both are land-based
activities dealing with the same elements and a lot of the same gear. The
second reason is that the number of postings is small enough that it is
easy to find what you want to find and ignore the rest.
I apologize to any hikers that I may have offended,
Tom Harper
George Scott
Since my original (offensive to a few) remarks may have been misunderstood,
I would like to make a couple of points.
1) I thought that the smiley and the FLAME ON/OFF labels would be enough to
show all but the seriously humor-impaired that I was not totally serious
about the remarks. Apologies to the few who were offended.
2) I was trying to show a different viewpoint on the original subject, which
concerned a so-called 'climber' who fell to his death. The original poster was
worried that technical climbing and mountaineering might be restricted by
certain members of the general public who feel that 'Those people have no
business being up there.' My proposed rule about hikers not leaving the trail
carried this to an extreme. Suppose (as Tom Harper has suggested) that instead
of labelling this guy a climber, he was called a 'hiker'. Suppose further that
a rule like mine :-) was passed into law. Wouldn't the hikers feel
(justifiably) persecuted?
My whole point concerns 1) access to public land for whatever (non-damaging
to the land) activity you want, and 2) personal responsibility for your own
actions while doing it. The hiker who thought my remarks condescending should
realize that climbers and mt. bikers have already had access problems, and that
hikers could be next. This is a subject that all users of public land should be
concerned about - we don't need to fight just because you'd rather hike and I'd
rather climb.
Finally, thanks to Tom Harper for saying everything I wanted to say, but doing
it better.
Rich Kulawiec
>To call anyone that walks down a trail a hiker is exactly the same problem
>that the climbing community has to deal with. My guess is that the original
>poster made the same slip.
Your guess is wrong; I posted the original article, and if you go back
and re-read it, you'll see that I chose my words very carefully, in order
to give a feeling for the *public* attitude that the local media seem
to be encouraging; I made no comment at all about what *my* attitude is.
---Rsk
Ross Whitaker
I don't think it's really fascist ideals that underlie such restrictions,
it's something much more practical - economics. Consider the seat belt laws
that are in effect in many states. Are they there because our government
(or the public or whatever) wants to tell everyone what to do? Not really.
The main reason is to reduce the amount we all suffer (financially) when people in car accidents recieve medical treatment. If a climber goes out and beats
himself very badly, then we all must foot the bill for his rescue and hospital
care (if he is insured, then we pay through insurance - if not, then we
we pay through health care costs, which cycle back through insurance).
In the special case of climbing restrictions there is, as far as I know,
another issue - liability. If a
climber goes out and kills himself, all sorts of people remain vunerable to
liability suits, from the equipment manufacturers to the owners of the land.
As long as its the publics responsibility to protect the rights and care for
the health of injured climbers, then it is the publics business to know what
kinds of dangerous things they are up to.
Ross
UNC Deptartment of Computer Science
Scott Woods
>If a
>climber goes out and kills himself, all sorts of people remain vunerable to
>liability suits, from the equipment manufacturers to the owners of the land.
<FLAME ON>
This is one of the principle attitudes that is responsible for driving
this country into the ground. Nobody is willing to take responsibility
for their own actions. The solution to this problem is to pass some
death/injured by misadventure laws, which prohibit or severely limit
liability in cases where the injured party is/was largely responsible
for the actions leading up to an accident. We have only ourselves to blame
if we allow lawyers,politicians and other such scum to rob us of our basic
freedoms.
<FLAME OFF>
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent
the sentiments of my employer.
Bill Poser
factors in moves to restrict climbing. My impression (possibly false -
does anyone have statistics?) is that climbing injuries are either relatively
minor or fatal, so that the costs are not that large. And the number of
climbing injuries is not very great. So the total impact on health and
insurance costs cannot be very great. In any case, I have a lot of trouble
with restricting someone's activities on the grounds of what medical
care might cost. If this is really an issue, then the correct policy is
to say that society simply won't pay those medical costs. Jump in front
of a train and we let you die.
As for liability, even if fear of liability is a motivation, the very
fact that someone has to worry about being sued by a climber reflects
a perversion of our tort system. Do something stupid or dangerous and
its your responsibility, not the landowners. The attitude that makes
a landowner liable for anything other than negligence in maintenance of
his property goes hand-in-glove with the attitude that people are not
responsible for their own actions and must be told what to do.
I also question the legitimacy of the fear. To my knowledge, no injured
climber has EVER sued the owner of the land on which he or she was
injured. That is to be expected, since by their very nature climbers
are people who take responsibility for their own actions. Can anyone
provide examples of actual lawsuits by climbers?
Bill
R o d Johnson
>climber has EVER sued the owner of the land on which he or she was
>injured. That is to be expected, since by their very nature climbers
>are people who take responsibility for their own actions. Can anyone
>provide examples of actual lawsuits by climbers?
Lawsuits, yes. Against landowners, I don't know. The latest
"Outside" magazine has a story about the Chouinard lawsuit, in which
the widow of Edward Carrington, a novice climber who fell to his death
during a climbing class in the Tetons, sued the instructor, Exum
Guides, and Chouinard Equipment. It also mentions five other
liability claims against Chouinard, all of which fetched pretty big
settlements.
Did anyone else read this? It documents the current state of legal
paranoia about this whole question pretty well. As you say, none of
the suits seem to be against landowners, but if I owned property where
climbing was going on, I might feel justified in being nervous.
--
Rod Johnson - U Michigan Linguistics : Internet: r...@um.cc.umich.edu
in exile in Minnesota : Phone: (507) 645 9804
Tom Harper
I agree that my guess is wrong, because I failed to notice the smiley face
attached to the copy of George Scott's original response. However, my
comments addressed the base note written by Charles Geiger that discussed a
perceived affront to hikers and a proposal to split climbing out of
rec.backcountry, not your posting about the media coverage of some
climbing-related deaths. I thought that by attaching it to Charles' base
note the context would be clear.
Re your base note: Thanks for posting your original article. Its important
(to me at least) to hear about situations like these. You are right when
you respond that it really doesn't matter how a semantics battle gets resolved
in rec.backcountry - the public perception is the real issue at hand. Another
aspect is the frustration felt in most of the climbing community regarding
situations like you brought up. Everyone that howled at the use of "climber"
to describe someone with no training is well aware of the general situation
that your specific example relates and is frustrated at the difficulty of
somehow fixing a problem that endangers the sport of climbing.
I hope that if there are any further developments, you will post another note.
Tom Harper t...@hpda.hp.com
David Mellinger
>factors in moves to restrict climbing. My impression (possibly false -
>does anyone have statistics?) is that climbing injuries are either relatively
>minor or fatal, so that the costs are not that large.
Not really, look at Accidents in North American Mountaineering.
Broken legs/ankles (not so minor) lead the list of rock-climbing
injuries. (I suspect that the list is weighted toward mortality, in
the sense that minor injuries aren't noticed.) Liability IS a major
factor in the move to restrict climbing; look at the cases that the
Access Committee of the American Alpine Club takes on.
>And the number of climbing injuries is not very great.
True, but not in the public perception. "Climber goes climbing, has a
great time, returns home safe and sound" does not make the paper.
>So the total impact on health and
>insurance costs cannot be very great. In any case, I have a lot of trouble
>with restricting someone's activities on the grounds of what medical
>care might cost. If this is really an issue, then the correct policy is
>to say that society simply won't pay those medical costs. Jump in front
>of a train and we let you die.
Nice in theory, but this doesn't work in reality. Suppose you're a
doctor and a mangled person shows up on the verge of death. Are you
going to deny aid because that person was hurt climbing? No, you take
care of him/her first and ask questions (and payment) later. Doctors
are even required to swear an oath (Hippocratic) to this effect --
that they'll take care of ill people to the best of their ability.
It's a part of our culture: help the hurt, even the self-destructive.
>As for liability, even if fear of liability is a motivation, the very
>fact that someone has to worry about being sued by a climber reflects
>a perversion of our tort system. Do something stupid or dangerous and
>it's your responsibility, not the landowners.
Nearly all climbers agree, but our legal system does not. I too get
hopping mad about large awards I read about, but as long as juries
keep paying them out, greedy lawyers will keep going for them.
A lot of doctors are ceasing to accept pro bono patients because of
fear of malpractice suits. People observe, and are goaded by the
sleaziest of the sleaze to observe, that a lawsuit is like a lottery
ticket with much better odds. "Why not roll the dice -- you might get
rich?"
>I also question the legitimacy of the fear. To my knowledge, no injured
>climber has EVER sued the owner of the land on which he or she was
>injured. That is to be expected, since by their very nature climbers
>are people who take responsibility for their own actions. Can anyone
>provide examples of actual lawsuits by climbers?
>
> Bill
Sure, it's happened several times, sometimes by the parents of kids
who have gotten injured. Then one I know the best happened two years
ago. A guy was climbing on the rock in Redwood City, CA. He finished
a climb, started to lower off, and his anchor failed. He fell ~20
feet, breaking both ankles badly and injuring his back. After many
months in the hospital, he sued the rock's owner for ~$750,000,
eventually settling out of court for ~$150,000. About half of that
was the medical cost.
There's an interesting article in Science this (or maybe last) week
with suggestions on what to do about personal-injury lawsuits. The
suggestion is to throw out pain-and-suffering and punitive damages,
create a general fund for injuries similar to the unemployment-
compensation fund, and establish guidelines about how much should be
paid out for certain kinds of injuries. This way we avoid the
scatter-shot distribution of very large awards, don't waste huge
resources fighting cases in the courts, and tame the costs. We had
better decide on SOME solution to the tort mess before we sue
ourselves into oblivion.
Dave Mellinger
da...@cs.Stanford.EDU
Disclaimer: These opinions are worth what you paid for them.
Bill Poser
>Broken legs/ankles (not so minor) lead the list of rock-climbing
>injuries.
I guess I think of such things as minor. The total cost of caring for
them isn't all that great unless the breaks are really awful (splintered
bones etc.). Ankles are typically more of a problem. The types
of injuries that are really expensive to care for are things like broken
necks that required extended hospitalization. As for the point
that the number of injuries is not large, on which we agree, what the
public perceives may be relevant to how it acts but is not relevant to
a rational analysis. That is, it appears to be the case that the actual
cost of climbing injuries is not very great and so a rational public
will not worry about it much.
I would also be interested to see the expected cost of injury
for climbing compares with "safe" activities, like driving.
I am well aware that refusal to treat injuries would require a cultural
change. But, IF it is really the case that some activity is so dangerous
that treating the resulting injuries is too expensive for society to bear,
such a cultural change could come about. One thing that we can do is to
resist the formation of non-volunteer rescue units.
The Redwood City case cited is the first of a suit against a landowner
I've heard of. That is interesting, and depressing. It is also
interesting that it was settled out of court for a fraction of the
original amount of the suit, suggesting that the case was weak and that
the settlement was made to get rid of a nuisance suit, as it seems so
many are.
Anyhow, I certainly agree (and actually already said) that the tort
system is ridiculous.
Bill
Peter Barbee
>I don't think it's really fascist ideals that underlie such restrictions,
>it's something much more practical - economics. Consider the seat belt laws
>we pay through health care costs, which cycle back through insurance).
>
>climber goes out and kills himself, all sorts of people remain vunerable to
>liability suits, from the equipment manufacturers to the owners of the land.
>As long as its the publics responsibility to protect the rights and care for
>the health of injured climbers, then it is the publics business to know what
>kinds of dangerous things they are up to.
I disagree with almost everything Ross has said. Yes, he largely does
describe the current reality but that just means the current reality
sucks.
The "economic practicality" argument can be used to restrict anything
whatsoever. How about creamy rich ice cream? High cholesteral levels
are surely dangerous...etc etc. Thus I reject that argument out of
hand. If people want to ride their motorcycle over the speed limit
with poor brakes and no helmet let them. It's simple not my
responsibility, nor my right, to restrict them. Yes, I might have to
pay slightly more in medical insurance costs to cover the cost of
this freedom but I will do that because I am also paying for my
freedom. Besides, insurance isn't expensive because people involve
themselves is risky activitie/accidents, it's expensive because of
the system (liability, overspecialization, etc. etc., another post
another place).
The liability argument is similarly flawed. The owners of the land!!!
My goodness. The thought of a court/jury making a judgement against
a landowner because someone used their unimproved land without authorization
disgusts me. Or do we have to fence everything in and get permission
in triplicate and pass a qualifying exam and and and. I can see some
liability in the product manufacturing arena but only for products
with design or manufacturing defects. If the product does what it
was intended to do but failed because its user asked for more I see
no liability. Let's take responsibility for ourselves.
I don't ask the public to be responsible for me, in fact I demand that
they not be. I'm capable of that job.
Peter B
Ed Clarke/10240000
> The Redwood City case cited is the first of a suit against a landowner
> I've heard of. That is interesting, and depressing. It is also
Here's another seriously awful one ... Seems a couple of pre-teen
brothers were playing with BB guns on a NY state senators property
(without permission). One shoots his brother in the eye. Mother
sues the senator. Insurance company settles out of court.
--
| "Consume waste products, you unclean offspring
Ed Clarke | of unmarried parental units! You male infants of
acheron!clarke | female canines! May the Prime Builder cast you
| into the Void! May --"
Eugene N. Miya
>Yah, like the man said, kick back and have a beer.
> Alan Pope <alp...@Eng.Sun.COM>
Ah, but what if you don't drink. ;)
--e. nobuo miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Pepsi (tm), no ice please.
"What are you doing?"
"A samuari will never get so drunk so as not be defend himself." --Kambei
Eugene N. Miya
threads of discussion seemingly independent from one another.
First before one flames too far about hikers being mistaken for climbers
I doubt many of us will know the full situation. I've lost friends
who were not climbers and so counted in this way, and I think it a bit
silly to flame the media. Am I responsible? We have a society which
values free will and indepedence. I can advise, but that's all.
You have to make the next judgment. This contrasts with the next
thing.
There's a second discussion about kids, belaying them, taking them into
the woods, etc. You can say I will take a more callous viewpoint, but a
climber getting dropped by his kid belaying, etc. is evolution in
action. Regardless of the type of cord being used etc. Evolution
affects, you, me, the entire climbing community. Insurance rates? Sure.
But that's a reflection on the more liablious view of our society.
It's a price we are going to have to pay (unless we change, society, not
climbing).
Going into the wilderness with kids, be they Scouts, or just kids
is an iffy proposition. It's more dependent on the people and the
parents rather than the kids. There is a time and a place for in life
to do it. I suggest for a moment you consider the current Back to the
Future film when they serve Marty some water. 8) That is part of
wilderness (sometimes). If your kids can handle this, that's fine, they
are ready. If YOU have to modify the environment to insure they won't
catch disease, that's development, that does not belong in the
wilderness. I have met so many people turned off by the out of doors by
well meaning parents, its Evolution in action. More room for us.
The most notable example I've met recently was Jules Eichorn, his 50 year
old son is just now getting back into climbing (standing on Eichorn's
pinnacle for an image). If there's any doubt in your mind, and you love
wilderness and love kids, you don't do it.
That is judgment. When to say no. When not to introduce the city into
the woods. And it seems that it's not an easy issue to decide.
--e. nobuo miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
The best answer I've seen recently about answering why men climbing
mountains:
I can answer the question, but if you have to ask, you won't
understand the answer.
Chris Schmandt
>Going into the wilderness with kids, be they Scouts, or just kids
>is an iffy proposition. It's more dependent on the people and the
>parents rather than the kids. There is a time and a place for in life
Well, I would hope that someone with as much love for the outdoors as
Eugene will take a somewhat different attitude when he has kids of his
own! (half-smiley face)
If you like being outdoors, and if your kids like it, then there is no reason
not to take them out. It seems pretty sad to not be able to share the
things that one values most with one's kids. Of course, you tend to tone
down your trips quite a bit, be safer and better prepared (first aid gear,
extra clothes, and all that).
I like to hike with my friends, but I also like to hike with my daughter.
And fortunately many of my friends like to hike with both of us. I also
like to hike (much shorter trips!) with my father, and feel that one of the
best gifts he gave me was an appreciate of the outdoors, both hiking and
wildlife.
Will my daughter feel the same way? Who knows. She's already seen more
of the country than I'd seen when I went to college. Beautiful places.
Maybe she'll hate having to shit in the woods. There's much I can't
control. But I'm sure going to give her every chance to like it!
chris
Eugene N. Miya
ge...@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt) writes:
>Well, I would hope that someone with as much love for the outdoors as
>Eugene will take a somewhat different attitude when he has kids of his
>own! (half-smiley face)
>
>If you like being outdoors, and if your kids like it,
See, we are talking to the converted. That is a bigger IF than many
people are willing to acknowledge, and I grant that to all of you whom
are parents. I've been on the receiving end when I gave demos for the Y
at Big Bear Lake, etc. It's too bad more parents don't do things with
their kids. And these experiences are tough ones, consider my mentor,
very early on, his son both loved the outdoors, but we hit a squirrel
in his VW. I remember his son taking that. He's now married, no kids
yet, but not into the outdoors except golf. As I get to know Jules
Eichorn and his son better, maybe I will see other things, and so forth.
Basically say I have insufficient information. But I get asked about
the legal issues (more on this in a moment, as I'm not a lawyer, nor is
the net the place to get legal advice). Many other stories, there are
always the exception such as John Harlin, III.
Separate bizarre issue: on helping Abbey nuke Mt. Everest (Abbey's
climber's revenge) or blasting holes thru the San Gabs to get rid of
the smog, etc., the reference is Operation Crosstie, Testshot Buggy.
The combined yield was only 5 KT, but it's "engineering." It would
not take much flatten Everest given the world's arsenal. Some of you
guys ask weird questions.
Tony Wesley
bcr...@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Brian E. Cripe) writes:
>> Here in Finland the land is free. A landowner can not prevent me
>> from walking in his forest.
>I ask because every time I am out mountain biking and I encounter
>some woods with No Trespassing signs I start thinking leftist thoughts
>about "What makes this land any more yours than mine?".
Signs, signs, everywhere are signs . . .
In Michigan, if private land is enrolled in the CFA (Commercial
Forestry Act), the owner cannot deny access to either hunters or
fishermen. He can, however, deny access to anyone else including
backpackers, mountain bikers, birders, etc. I understand that thier
are similar restrictrictions in other states, and perhaps federal
lands leased for cattle grazing. Not sure about that, perhaps someone
on the net can confirm or verify.
I've never been too happy about hunters and fishermen getting
more access than I have, but they have the collective voice of money.
One of these days I'll have to get an ultralight fishing pole and
a license to stick in my backpack. Even if I never intend to use it.
FYI, under the CFA, landowners get a break in their property taxes,
agree not to build any structures on the property and give the state a
share when the property is logged.
Brian E. Cripe
> of a cliff or fall from a tree, it is my own fault, not the
> landowner's.
How far does this extend? Can a landowner keep you off of his lawn?
Out of his cow pasture? What is the test that distinguishes closed
land from free land?
I ask because every time I am out mountain biking and I encounter
some woods with No Trespassing signs I start thinking leftist thoughts
about "What makes this land any more yours than mine?". Yet I
certainly feel within my rights to prevent any smart-ass mountain
biker from riding in my lawn. Where is the boundary?
Brian Cripe
Blake Philip Wood
>
> In Michigan, if private land is enrolled in the CFA (Commercial
>Forestry Act), the owner cannot deny access to either hunters or
>fishermen.
Here in CA, coastal access is an issue in some places. I believe the
current rules are that the beach below the high tide mark belongs to
the public, ie., the property owner can't keep you off the beach.
Access TO the beach across private land is another matter.
I'm less sure about the rights of fishermen to follow streams and rivers.
I remember that at a camp I once worked at in the sierra, we had to allow
fishermen to follow the stream that went through the center of the camp.
I don't know if this was a consequence of the fact that the land was
leased by the city of Berkeley (who ran the camp) from the USFS.
Questions: Does access along streams and rivers follow the same rules
as for the beach, including those that cross private land? Are these
rules established by the county, state, or feds?
Blake P. Wood - bw...@janus.Berkeley.EDU
Plasmas and Non-Linear Dynamics, U.C. Berkeley, EECS
Hal Lillywhite
>I ask because every time I am out mountain biking and I encounter
>some woods with No Trespassing signs I start thinking leftist thoughts
>about "What makes this land any more yours than mine?". Yet I
>certainly feel within my rights to prevent any smart-ass mountain
>biker from riding in my lawn. Where is the boundary?
Well, from my perspective as a former farm boy I think I can
understand why the landowner often puts up those signs. Most
farmers are friendly and would prefer to allow people to
hunt/fish/hike etc. on their property. The problem is too many
people either don't know how to treat the land, crops and animals or
don't care. Damage can range from littering to theft (picking
apples etc.) to outright destruction of trees, machinery, and
animals. Few farmers anymore dare allow strangers unrestricted
access to their land. It's amazing how some people who would never
think of entering a factory and taking the product, damaging the
equipment etc. think it is OK to enter a farm and help themselves to
the crops, chase the animals, cut trees for firewood, leave gates
open or tear down fences etc.
What can we do? Well, we probably can't turn it around but when we
are allowed on someone's property we can treat that property
carefully. We can also encourage others to do likewise, even to the
point of reporting any deliberate property damage to legal
authorities. Other than that it's the same old story of the
majority suffering for the sins of an obnoxious minority.
David Mellinger
>In article <13...@csli.Stanford.EDU> po...@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Poser) writes:
>>I also question the legitimacy of the fear. To my knowledge, no injured
>>climber has EVER sued the owner of the land on which he or she was
>>injured. That is to be expected, since by their very nature climbers
>>are people who take responsibility for their own actions. Can anyone
>>provide examples of actual lawsuits by climbers?
>>
>> Bill
>
>a climb, started to lower off, and his anchor failed. He fell ~20
>feet, breaking both ankles badly and injuring his back. After many
>months in the hospital, he sued the rock's owner for ~$750,000,
>eventually settling out of court for ~$150,000. About half of that
>was the medical cost.
I was apparently wrong, or at least misleading, about this:
According to the current On Belay newsletter, the owner was sued only
because he was present at the time of the accident and had something
to do with organizing the climbing that day.
The good news is that he's now donating the rock (and land) to the
AAC, which will keep it open for climbing.
Dave Mellinger
da...@cs.Stanford.EDU
Mika Raivio
> Suppose you're a
> doctor and a mangled person shows up on the verge of death. Are you
> going to deny aid because that person was hurt climbing? No, you take
> care of him/her first and ask questions (and payment) later.
... and in article <...> po...@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Poser) writes:
> I am well aware that refusal to treat injuries would require a cultural
> change. But, IF it is really the case that some activity is so dangerous
> that treating the resulting injuries is too expensive for society to bear,
> such a cultural change could come about.
I believe there are hospitals in the US that don't accept patients
unless they arrive with a bundle of cash or plastic or at least proof
of insurance - and this includes emergency cases.
Bill continues:
> It is also
> interesting that it was settled out of court for a fraction of the
> original amount of the suit, suggesting that the case was weak and that
> the settlement was made to get rid of a nuisance suit, as it seems so
> many are.
Nevertheless, $150,000 paid by a landowner to an accident victim is
$150,000 too much. I wouldn't consider this merely a "nuisance" even
if I had the dough.
This issue shouldn't really concern me and the absurd anecdotes one
hears are always good for a few laughs, but I can't help wondering
why the excesses of the so-called legal establishment in the US seem
to keep getting worse. Of the Americans I know or have met, not a
single one has tried to defend US liability laws. Admittedly, my
sample is small, maybe 1/500,000th of the population. But aren't
juries (which, by the way, are not part of the legal system of
most countries) made up of 'ordinary people', whatever that may
mean? If a significant portion of the population considers liability
settlements unreasonable, why do they keep granting huge sums of
money to irresponsible opportunists and their kin? Tell me, I'm curious.
--
Mika Raivio f29...@taltta.hut.fi
Helsinki Univ. of Technology mika@{otax,syke,city}.hut.fi
Eugene N. Miya
mi...@city.hut.fi (Mika Raivio) writes:
>In article <...> da...@cm-next-2.Stanford.EDU (David Mellinger) writes:
>Nevertheless, $150,000 paid by a landowner to an accident victim is
>$150,000 too much. I wouldn't consider this merely a "nuisance" even
>if I had the dough.
No, this was a joint suit again the Sierra Club, some other parties and
the land owner, Bill Oldfield. The Club assumed the assessment cost,
but Bill had to deal with the "duress," take time from work (EE),
handle person legal fees, etc. The Club paid the $150K. It did this
because the "event" was sort of associated (was officially) sanctioned
with the Rock Climbing Section.
I have considered "interviewing" Bill like some professional reporter
to get "his side." Perhaps I might do that some day. But that kind of
reporting just accentuates the problem. I should rightfully interview
the litegant, and I do not know him unlike Bill whom I know very well.
Do not take the above "duress" lightly. Bill was watching his house,
morguage, his loving wife and kids, and his homeowner's insurance
(including earthquake) prepare to go down the tubes.
If you (generically) want to understand the legal climate of the US, read
misc.legal for a while then cross post a series of questions to m.l and r.b.
DO IT! I DARE YOU! ;) {Best Robert Conrad voice}
In this newsgroup you can only preach to the converted about trying to
understand the US legal system. We also have a popular TV series,
"The People's Court" which apparently has done more to educate the
public (good and bad) about US law. To quote a posting from Australia
"What are you Yank's trying to do, make the most perfect country
in the world?"
Another poster (not me) said half in jest/seriously:
"Yes."
David Mellinger
>unless they arrive with a bundle of cash or plastic or at least proof
>of insurance - and this includes emergency cases.
Legally they can't refuse emergency cases. At least not in California
and Massachusetts.
What does happen is that hospitals will have busy emergency rooms, and
will try to divert "bad" (non-paying) cases to other hospitals if they
can. This problem is exacerbated by people's use of emergency rooms
for minor ailments. There are horror stories about ambulances
cruising around from hospital to hospital, trying to find an emergency
room that isn't packed full.
>This issue shouldn't really concern me and the absurd anecdotes one
>hears are always good for a few laughs, but I can't help wondering
>why the excesses of the so-called legal establishment in the US seem
>to keep getting worse.
Part of the problem is political -- lobbyists for lawyers have a great
deal of money and political clout. Many elected representatives are
lawyers themselves and are more sympathetic than your average person
to lawyers' pleas to reduce the excesses of the tort system. Look at
how hard it's been to enact no-fault auto insurance, for example.
>Of the Americans I know or have met, not a
>single one has tried to defend US liability laws. Admittedly, my
>sample is small, maybe 1/500,000th of the population. But aren't
>juries (which, by the way, are not part of the legal system of
>most countries) made up of 'ordinary people', whatever that may
>mean? If a significant portion of the population considers liability
>settlements unreasonable, why do they keep granting huge sums of
>money to irresponsible opportunists and their kin? Tell me, I'm curious.
>
>Mika Raivio f29...@taltta.hut.fi
>Helsinki Univ. of Technology mika@{otax,syke,city}.hut.fi
Ordinary human sympathy and prejudice plays a large role. It is felt
that if someone gets hurt -- even if it's NO ONE's fault -- they
should get some sort of compensation, simply because it's unfair that
someone should suffer so much. Also, the plaintiff's lawyer typically
has the small-guy-versus-big feeling on his side. If Joe Shmoe is
suing the Sierra Club, Joe is plainly seen in court and can elicit
sympathy, while the opposing insurance company is represented by
nothing but a clutch of lawyers. Who has sympathy for lawyers? Or
insurance companies? People will award money even if it's undeserved
because no single person gets hurt by it.
Part of the problem may actually be jury trials. A jury which has
never seen a personal-injury case before is easier to sway with
emotional arguments than a judge who handles them every day. Also, a
judge, or anyone who handles a large number of trials, is forced to
consider the cumulative effect of his/her decisions, while a jury can
more easily think that a large award in their single case won't make
much difference overall.
Too much justice, like too much accounting, obstructs us all.
Dave Mellinger
da...@cs.Stanford.EDU
Eugene N. Miya
da...@cm-next-2.Stanford.EDU (David Mellinger) writes:
>In article <MIKA.90J...@city.hut.fi>
mi...@city.hut.fi (Mika Raivio) writes:
>>But aren't
>>juries (which, by the way, are not part of the legal system of
>>most countries) made up of 'ordinary people', whatever that may mean?
>Ordinary human sympathy and prejudice plays a large role. . . .
>Part of the problem may actually be jury trials. A jury which has
>never seen a personal-injury case before is easier to sway with
>emotional arguments than a judge who handles them every day.
Actually we discussed this last July at Bill's house during the RCS
spagetti feed.
First, we noted that climbing is not normal pragmatic American thinking.
Climbing is viewed as "a little crazy." You must deal with burden of
proof. Again both sides are seen as "climbers." But the victim was
younger, so he had a bit of an advantage in the case. We had to second
guess what a jury of men and women who were not climbers would think.
We knew the litigant had lined climbers up to support his position
(I've met one of these since.) You call it. Were the latter climbers
working against the sport? (They are respectable.) How do you think
non-outdoor oriented people would think about this? [I've got the numbers
fortunately, the trial was in SF, not the mid-West. There are also
clear divisions based on gender. Appendix, Richard Mitchell, The
Mountain Experience, PhD thesis, U. Chicago Press.]
Stop bring up interesting topics fellas. ;) I've got to get back to work.
Brian E. Cripe
> understand why the landowner often puts up those signs.
> Few farmers anymore dare allow strangers unrestricted
> access to their land.
I agree with your posting. Random people (including mountain bikers)
can cause damage to a farm. Seeing a "No Trespassing" sign on
someone's pasture fence doesn't start my leftist juices flowing.
However it is a lot more of a gray area when the land is 100 acres
of woods with no improvements that can be damaged. Yes it is possible
for people to cause harm to the land itself and yes it is possible that
the land has some special status of which I am unaware, yet somehow I
doubt that this is often the case.
Brian Cripe
P.S. I have several times asked a farmer for permission to cross his
land on my bike and have never been turned down.
Darren S. Bush
>David Mellinger writes:
>>Mika Raivio writes:
>>>But aren't
>>>juries (which, by the way, are not part of the legal system of
>>>most countries) made up of 'ordinary people', whatever that may mean?
>Good non-US point.
Indeed! I have spoken with a friend-attorney about this whole litigation
business we've been bantering about lately, and his standard lawyer
response was "Well, juries and judges do not award amounts inpersonal
injury cases. The jury does that, so you can't really blame the lawyers
for asking for huge amounts of money, because chances are they'll get very
little of what they ask.".
Juries are a problem, because lawyers have learned how to manipulate even
the most sophisticated jurors. Given human nature, it's not that
difficult. The alternative isn't so attractive: what if the judge hearing
your case has a flaming hemerrhoid that day? :-|
>>Ordinary human sympathy and prejudice plays a large role. . . .
>>Part of the problem may actually be jury trials. A jury which has
>>never seen a personal-injury case before is easier to sway with
>>emotional arguments than a judge who handles them every day.
Yes, exactly. I taught a lecture today about social psychology in the
courtroom. Most of the comments from my students were of the following
kind: "That's not fair." "That's stupid." "How can they *do* that?" "Is
that *legal*?"....etc.
As Norman Risjord, University of Wisconsin historian once said to me,
"I often hear folks say 'Let's kill all the lawyers', but that's not going
to make the rest of society any less stupid." Here here.
>Stop bring up interesting topics fellas. ;) I've got to get back to work.
rn: just say NO! :-)
Darren S. Bush Got a face of stone
U. Rahchesta And a ghostwritten biography
Disclaimer: Yeah, sure.
Darren:George::Karl:Groucho - David Byrne
anmar mirza
occaisionally have to go to several hospitals to get patients into an ED,
working with a service in Indianapolis I had that happen on occaision.
A lot of this comes from ED abuse. I am not just talking about the folks who
are on medicaid who want to see their cousin in the hospital across town
and have no transport, so they figure since they have medicaid, that will be
their ride to the hospital, they call up claiming chest pains, or abdominal
pains, insist on going in to the ED. Sinc medicaid paid to take them, they
must also take them home. No, I am also talking about the folks who have
a sore arm, throat, cold, flu, whatever. These people go into the ED when
no EMERGENCY exists. Any of these people could have more cheaply gone into
see their family doctor. If there was a need for a hospital visit, the family
doctor could make that recommendation.
This was one of the factors that led to my leaving the big city services. I
refuse to work on a large city service, I have always lived in the relative
country, I like our attitudes towards EMS. To then have to deal with shit
like that tends to burn one out. I much prefer the laid back pace of a small
town, someone calls up, chances are, it is a friend or neighbor.
Anmar Mirza # If a product is good, # The two best ways # Space, humans next
EMT-A # they will stop making # to my heart are # goal in the race
N9ISY (tech) # it. Unless it is # sex, and the # for immortality.
Director AESL # designed to kill. # descending aorta # --- me
Hal Lillywhite
>> Few farmers anymore dare allow strangers unrestricted
>> access to their land.
...
>However it is a lot more of a gray area when the land is 100 acres
>of woods with no improvements that can be damaged. Yes it is possible
>for people to cause harm to the land itself and yes it is possible that
>the land has some special status of which I am unaware, yet somehow I
>doubt that this is often the case.
Agreed, and landowners are less likely to post such areas than crop
areas. Unfortunately, even there some jerks will trash the place.
Sometimes such places will become unauthorized garbage dumps, people
will build fires at the bases of trees etc. I suggest that anytime
we see someone dumping garbage in an obviously unauthorized site we
get the license number and report it to both the landowner (if
known) and the local law enforcement people. With the present
concern about the environment we might get some action against the
perpetrators. If concerned people all try to protect everybody's
land as if it were there own maybe we can reduce the jerk
population. These people may not worry about the low probability
of a law officer seeing them dumping but they will be concerned if
they think any passerby is likely to turn them in.
I read an interesting story many years ago in a newspaper. It seems
a guy returned from vacation and found a letter from a farmer on
whose property he has camped. He had left some personal
belongings at the campsite and the farmer offered to mail them COD
if he would agree to accept the charges. The guy agreed and as
a result paid for the mailing of the trash he had dumped on the
farmer's land. I wish the same could happen to all litterbugs.
John Witters
>Juries are a problem, because lawyers have learned how to manipulate even
>the most sophisticated jurors. Given human nature, it's not that
>difficult.
I know several people who have been called up for jury duty. Usually they are
dismissed during jury selection with no further questions asked as soon as the
lawyer(s) find out that they're engineers. Both the prosecution and defense
prefer to dismiss engineers. I've heard the reason that lawyers don't like
engineers sitting on a jury is because it's too hard to snow them. In a
nutshell, lawyers try to select juries that can be manipulated.
Note the followup to misc.legal.
-John
--
* * * John Witters voice: (206) 356-5274
* \ * John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.
* \ * P.O.B. C9090 M/S 245F fax: (206) 356-5116
* FLAMINGOS * Everett, Washington 98206 or (206) 356-5174
* \ *
* \ * domain: wit...@tc.fluke.COM
* * * uucp: {sun,microsoft,uw-beaver}!fluke!witters
Eugene N. Miya
ha...@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite) writes:
>Sometimes such places will become unauthorized garbage dumps,
It all began one Thanksgiving, in the town of Stockbridge, Mass.
..... (Or many people are too young for that?)
Then there was Max Yasgur's farm, what a mess....
If you want to see how the US legal system works, you should not that
the US Supreme Court will now have complete postings of majority and
minority opinions posted by UUNET as adjunct to misc.legal.
--e. nobuo miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
If you remember Woodstock, you weren't there.....
--Robin Williams
john reece
Raivio) writes:
> Of the Americans I know or have met, not a
> single one has tried to defend US liability laws. Admittedly, my
> sample is small, maybe 1/500,000th of the population.
I guess you haven't met any American trial lawyers :-). Seriously, there a
number of factors behind the liability travesty in the US:
* Many of state and federal legislators who write tort laws are trial
lawyers.
* The trial lawyers are a well-organized, well-funded lobbying
group in their own right.
* Many states have a doctrine known as the "deep pocket" principle.
This holds that if, for example, one defendant is found to be 5%
responsible for an accident, and a second is 95% responsible, and the
second doesn't have the resources to pay the verdict, the first
defendant can be held liable for the *entire* amount. This encourages
plaintiffs to try to find some corporation, government entity, or
wealthy individual at least partially at fault for an accident.
* Many consumer advocates distrust the agencies charged with regulating
consumer affairs. Rather than reform the regulatory agencies, they
decided to end run them altogether by broadening product liability
law. Many of these activist organizations also receive large
donations from the trial lawyers' lobby.
> But aren't juries (which, by the way, are not part of the legal system of
> most countries) made up of 'ordinary people', whatever that may
> mean? If a significant portion of the population considers liability
> settlements unreasonable, why do they keep granting huge sums of
> money to irresponsible opportunists and their kin? Tell me, I'm curious.
In the context of a specific trial the juror's view of events and the law
is frequently molded by the judge and the attorneys like so much putty.
Also, when one of the defendants is an out-of-state corporation or a big
insurance company, the jury is likely to stick it to them for that reason
alone.
John Reece
Not an Intel spokesman
jre...@yoyodyne.intel.com
Robert Kinne
>> settlements unreasonable, why do they keep granting huge sums of
>> money to irresponsible opportunists and their kin?
>
>In the context of a specific trial the juror's view of events and the law
>is frequently molded by the judge and the attorneys like so much putty.
While this may be true, it doesn't get to the heart of the problem.
Average Americans, jurors included, view any liability proceeding as
a lottery opportunity. Often lawsuits are initiated on rather
shaky grounds in the hope that a large settlement will be made out
of court to avoid the explosive and unpredictable behavior of trial
juries, who delight in awarding millions of dollars to plaintiffs
because they see the plaintiff, like themselves, as a victim of the
large corporations, government, etc.
And Americans are remarkable at dissembling; most truly believe that
the large settlements are wrong in the abstract, but that in the
specific case at hand, the appropriate result is to reward the
victim and 'stick it to' the culprit for all he's worth. As long
as we have this situation, and as long as there is no penalty for
bringing suits on dubious grounds, and as long as the system allows
the soliciting attorney to take a large percentage share of the
award, rather than a fixed or hourly fee, the abuses and the clogging
the courts with spurious suits will continue, or accelerate. Justice
is, indeed, blind.
"They all show forth the proud sort of confidence that comes of
a good sound irrefragable ignorance."