Trad climbing course

[chameleon]

Ehhhhh Esaaaayyyy!!!

Nice facquing vocabularrry mang!

Great Post.

[Nate]

Alright, here is the deal. A one day private course is $300 split up among how every many people there are in your course. There is a max of about 3-4 people because there is so much information to cover in the course. I've talked to two other people are interested in taking the course with me, but if you guys want to form another group to book another course have at er.
Nate

[Fred]

that's a great deal especially given the instructor-student ratio

[seanT]

Anyone taking this course should be seriously concered about liability issues and whether the instructor has insurance to cover any injuries you might sustain OUTSIDE. Indoor insurance and outdoor insurance are 2 different things. Make sure your guide/instructor is insured to teach and guide outside because if you get hurt bad and they are not you are screwed!

[Fred]

why do you need to be insured to gain knowledge? As long as the people registering are in agreement that they are not being "insured" to learn how to lead climb then do you need coverage?

the way I see it...

A) you can keep on going out climbing and plugging gear and getting hurt without insurance

B) you can keep on going out climbing and plugging gear and getting hurt without insurance but minimize your risk by education

[mike]

Because by taking cash for a service the instructor inherently states that he/she is competent and that he/she is fully capable of carrying off a course in a safety consious manner.
Accidents do happen, and it is not possible to sign away your statatory rights in Canada. One of which is the right not to be exposed to dangerous situations by people who say that they are competent, either stated on paper or implied by the acceptance of cash for services rendered.
Not quite the policy wordings I learned in insurance school- but it's something like that... it's part of Canada's contract law.

I'm not calling anyone incompetent. But let me say that once upon a time in BlackComb there were 4 people killed when a a few chairs seperated from the wire on the Creekside Quad. The back of the ticket clearly stated that by purchasing the ticket the user waived all claims against the hill for liability casused by employee and/or equipment (etc) failure. BlackComb ended up paying 'undisclosed' amounts to the families of each skiier who perished. They had insurance.

Mike

[The Mitt]

I agree with you Fred, but the reality is that while you are on a course and admit to an instructor that you know very little about Lead climbing and you get hurt while under his instruction (and he is not insured).
1. You may not be covered by your own insurance (if you have any). and;
2. I am sure he will not come up with the 1-4 mil it will cost to take care of your vegetative state.
Learning from a friend who is acting as a mentor has no security expressed or implied. As soon as cash changes hands an insured instructor is guaranteeing security either through proving competence to the insurer and guaranteeing compensation if there is an accident. What type of guarantee is an uninsured climber giving? BTW most ACMG insured guides will give lessons at approx $250 day.

It also depends on what is being covered. Is it an advanced anchor course, where the students don't lead climb? (low risk, low need for insurance) Is it a course that will enhance your confidence in your pro and get you to practice running it out at or just below the limit of your ability? (high risk, High need for insurance).

I am not against this or any course. I think its cool that people are out learning to rope climb. I hope to see more people out this summer. I just think its important for the prospective students to be armed with information, and that they should ask questions. If at the end of the day they are happy with the answers they get or don't care, then I wish them luck and hope they have fun. I just pray that this summer we don't get 3-4 over confident lead climbers who are going to get in over there heads and thunder in.

Mitt

When you Lead and get injured there is only one person to blame.
When your on a course and get injured there is also one person to blame.
They are not the same person.

[Fred]

you can have a trad leading course without actualy having them climb. There are tons of bomber gear placements usualy at ground level. Plus demonstrations by the instructor etc. There are lots of safe ways around it.

I duno. I just hate to discourage someone from passing on experience and knowledge in fear of being sued.

[The Mitt]

I think your right, you can do a course that is taught from the ground and pretty safe. I think that when ever you accept money to teach a high risk activity you should be prepared to be sued. I am not trying to discourage the course, just trying to get the community to make informed decisions. I also think that the more experienced climbers should encourage less experienced climbers to ask these questions and understand what the repercussions are. No matter who is teaching the course. What decsion they make after that is theirs to make.

Mitt

[Nate]

I'm confused. If I get injured in this course what does it matter if the instructor is insured or not. I'm still headed to the same hopistal right?
Nate

[The Mitt]

Yes you are going to the same hospital, but that's were it ends. If you miss work you don't get reimbursed, if you miss school and cannot continue for awhile you still pay for that. If you need long term care from a professional the government may or may not pay for a portion of that but very little, your family will pay the rest. If you develop a condition where you will never work again, you will have to rely on the government or your family to provide you with your income.

If you become a paraplegic the estimated cost for your recovery on top of what the government will pay is well over 1 million dollars, insurance companies are recommending that general sports like hiking have 5 mill worth of insurance. There was a suit won for a young girl against the girl guides she became a paraplegic through an accident here in Nova Scotia, they won for 4 million, only 250 000 being for pain and suffering the rest to pay for expenses. This was a simple fall during a confidence course.

Will your instructor pay for your house to be altered, the trips to specialists, the drugs that you have to take, the special vehicle you need to be driving around in, your home care provider, your pain and suffering, your wheel chair. Ask him, cause if he has inssurance they will.

Mitt

[Pierre]

Sort of off topic but does anyone know of any companies that will provide life insurance for rock climbers?

Alot of insurance policies don't want their clients taking part in dangerous activities.

[mike]

Get the policy wordings and look at the exclusions. If they don't exclude it.. it's covered. If you ask em they'll ask an actuarian and they'll get told to say no whether it's excluded or not- just easier for them.

Shouldn't be too hard to find.

Mike

[The Teth]

Note that everything the Mitt says applies to every time you go out climbing. Probably safer to stay home on the couch where you only have to worry about obesity and diabetes etc. etc.

It does not matter if your instructor is insured unless you intend to sue him/her. If your instructor tells you to jump off a bridge and you do it, then you deserve what you get. I may take into account someone else’s expert opinion when deciding if something is safe, but in the end, I make the final determination, whether I am paying someone to give me advice or not.

Insurance is really more of an issue for the instructor and any company or organization which is supplying the instructor, because there is always the risk that one of your clients will be a pansy and sue your ass.

I am willing to bet Nick is insured to instruct outdoors.

Teth

[kate]

"...one of your clients will be a pansy and sue your ass"

you consider someone becoming a parapalegic in a climbing accident and looking for compensation to be a "pansy"? nice.

[Pierre]

I don't think Teth was intending his comments to come across as insensitve to a parapalegic... Could be as simple a broken wrist or broken ankle that could cause a law suit. Alot of times it won't even be the person in the accident that does the sueing, it could be the parents, or the person insurance company doing the sueing.

Liabilty is always something to be concerned about.

Later

[mike]

If you bust your ankle while rock climbing- you won't get money from sueing anyone- nor will you need it.

If you bust your mobility or your ability to see then, like it or not, you have just entered the realm of 'I need more money right now then most mortgages cost'. No bank however is going to loan some freshly blind or immobile person any money whatsoever, based on the fact that it's going to take years for that person to adapt to their new situation and become employable, to the point of being able to pay those loans back.

Unfortunatly in our 'everyone for themselves in the race to riches' society we were brought up in... sueing is the only option for the freshly disabled.

I was close with a group of quadrapaligic guys in Vancouver- without lawsuits the government probably would have helped them exist. Lawsuits enabled them to make the best of a brand new, scary, difficult, and challenging situation.

Mike

[Pierre]

Maybe the broken ankle/wrist wasn't a great example, but if any injury causing a disability, lose of wages for a extend period could get you some sort of compensation.

Was just trying to argue the point that Teth comments were not trying to refer to parapalegics as being pansies because they might sue. It could be a person sueing for something much minor.

I remember getting in a bike accident and the insurance company of the person who hit me offered me $800 dollars for pain and suffering for two stitches in my hand. So I think it's possible to get compenstated for a busted ankle or two if negligence was proven.

I will also assume if one ( Nick ) was to take money from ppl for guiding or instructing rock climbing, I would bet he's thought about the liability issues.


Pierre

[The Teth]

If you are worrying about having someone to sue if you are paralysed in a climbing accident, then I guess you would care about whether your instructor has insurance. In fact, you better not go climbing ever, accept when paying someone with insurance to look after you, because when you go out climbing on your own there is no one to sue.

On the other hand, from an instructor’s point of view, someone could sue you for breaking a nail. When lawyers start advertising on the back of the phone book you know your country is going to hell!

Teth

[The Mitt]

That is not even close to sane logic. If I go out and injure myself then my insurance covers, if I am on a course then my insurance will expect someone else to cover it not them. Also knowing that someone is covered ensures the student that the instructor is competent to teach and has a safe way of instructing the content.
I wouldn't learn how to bungy jump from an uninsured instructor.
I wouldn't learn how to skydive from an uninsured instructor.
I wouldn't learn how to lead climb from an uninsured instructor.

If I am paying someone to take me climbing part of what I am paying him is to ensure my safety, and in the unfortunate event of an accident that he can compensate me for my future issues. When I go out on my own or with a friend I have to ensure my own safety and accept my own liability. If we go by your logic then nobody really needs insurance people who get injured just need to suck it up. Next time you see someone sitting in a wheelchair tell them how you feel about compensation see how that works.

Mitt

[The Teth]

Humm...when I went skydiving it never occurred to me to ask if they were insured. All I thought to ask about was their safety record and how long they had been in business.

I am talking about people who pretend to be hurt, or have minor injuries do to their own stupidity and decide to sue someone to get rich. It is quite common South of the border. The Maritime Museum of the Atlantic gets sued several times a year by American tourists who trip over stuff. That is why instructors need insurance.

Before this thread the idea of having to sue someone to deal with medical costs never occurred to me. I just figured that if I got seriously hurt my life was over. I am more into making sure I don’t get paralysed than worrying about what happens if I do. I do not have insurance and I have never taken a climbing course (although I think I would have learned a lot faster if I had). So I have never had this safety net of having someone to sue, ever, and I have gone climbing hundreds of times. I even taught myself lead climbing. It was only after my first couple lead climbs that I had an experienced climber check my placements to be sure I was doing it right. It seems to me that I would have been much safer to take a course with an experienced climber whether they were insured or not. Are you saying that if the instructor is not insured the climber should go learn on their own through trial and error instead of taking the course?

Teth

[mike]

By taking a lead climbing course... a proficient boulderer has the ability and the balls to get themselves into big trouble.

I'm sure you took things slow Teth, as did I, in the progression that I took on the way to the level I've reached. A person with a strong bouldering background might be more likely to climb at their limits rather than be a bit of a pansy while learning to climb up into harder grades.

I think that you might be barking up a bad tree, Teth, with your current negative drive towards the insurance industry. Yes the American legal system has messed it up for all of us. Truth of the matter is though- inherently dangerous sports do enter into things in the legal eye- as in they don't pay for minor injuries. On the other hand there still remains a compassionate legal stance towards someone who gets busted up really bad and needs money to move forward from a major injury.

Just 2 cents.
Mike

[The Mitt]

Humm...when I went skydiving it never occurred to me to ask if they were insured. All I thought to ask about was their safety record and how long they had been in business.

I am talking about people who pretend to be hurt, or have minor injuries do to their own stupidity and decide to sue someone to get rich. It is quite common South of the border. The Maritime Museum of the Atlantic gets sued several times a year by American tourists who trip over stuff. That is why instructors need insurance.

Frivolous law suits is not the topic here. Several of us here have just been discussing why you should have an insured guide/instructor. I also disagree that instructors need insurance because of frivolous law suits.

blah, blah, blah,.... I even taught myself lead climbing. It was only after my first couple lead climbs that I had an experienced climber check my placements to be sure I was doing it right. It seems to me that I would have been much safer to take a course with an experienced climber whether they were insured or not. Are you saying that if the instructor is not insured the climber should go learn on their own through trial and error instead of taking the course?

Teth

I think it has been very obvious that most people here including myself agree that the best way to learn how to climb traditionally is via an experienced mentor and yardage on the rock. You can argue that your instructor does not need insurance, that is fine go ahead and use that instructor. Probably nothing bad will happen (and I hope it doesn't) but if/when it does both you the instructor and the community will pay the price. This is a decision that you will make, what about if a minor wishes to take the course do you hold the same opinion?

[Nate]

Guys, if you wondernig if Nick is insured or not, I'm pretty sure is insured through Dalplex.
Nate

[Pierre]

Nate,

Instead of assuming just ask him if he has insurance.

I can assume that Rock Court is covered under dalpex insurance but that doesn't mean it it covers Nick who's teaching outdoor courses on the side.

I would feel confident though that Nick has thought about the liability issues and if most likely covered.

I think it's as simple as asking him!

Pierre

[MarkR]

When we go climbing we generally go with people we know and trust (if we are smart) or do some serious checking out before we place our well-being in someone elses hands. We are responsible for our safety after all.
We don't generally have that luxury when we take a course.
Given that any participants in a course are likely to be putting their trust in someone else who they may not know it makes sense to me to ensure that they are professional/competent.
Having liability insurance is a sign of professionalism.
You can not get liability insurance unless you have some professional qualifications, so it is also a sign of competence.

If these issues are important to you it makes sense not to assume that the instructor is professional/qualified.
After all, assumption is the Mother of all f*ck-ups!

[Scooter]

Ok, this is what I'm thinking. If you are ready to accept the risks of climbing, and its injury potential and want to take a course to learn how to climb better or w.e and trust that person.... then DO IT. Me personally... I would trust Nick... Insured or not. I would trust Mitt.. insured or not. Would I trust some random guy offering a course?.... nope! If you do not know anything about the person and do not have the least bit of trust in them then do some research. If it is somone like Nick who you already have a trust and respect for then why not? Nate went to Nick because he obviously feels safe and trusts what he has to say.

It's not like Nick is advertising this and trying to promote himself to teach people... if this were the case then I'm sure he would have to be insured. Instead he is merely offering a service for someone who asked him... If you want it, take it.... if not, then don't.

[The Mitt]

I think that is sound advice. Like Scooter is saying arm yourself with knowledge and at the end of the day make a choice.

Mitt

[john]

I have followed this post since its inception, agravated by the amount of inaccurate supposed legal advice. I am by no means an authority on th subject, however, I have taught many courses through UNB as well as privately (although not for money) over the last number of years. I have also had the unfortunate/ fortunate opportunity to deal in depth with a lawyer and insurance agent regarding various issues pertaining to insurance, courses and club activities, as well as, seek other advicce for general info. Much of the advice I am reading here contradicts both common sense and the legal advice I have heard from actual "authorites" on the subject. The purpose of this post is not to give any legal opinion one way or the other, as I am not qualified to do so, it is however to make aware to anyone who may not know better, simply that many of the opinions in previous posts are just that, unfounded opinions. So, if you really want to know an instructors obligation both legal and insurance wise to a prospective client seek qualified advice not internet opinions posted by anyone with a computer.

The question is simply one brought up by the fact that money is being charged for the course, which means the activity is possibly more than just one climber sharing learned knowledge with another climber. But by charging money one is not necessarily implying certification, perhaps only that their time is worth "x" amount of dollars per time period. As long as an instructor is not claiming false certification or pretenses, they are just sharing their knowledge and charging for thier time.

The more pertinent question is are they exerciseing due diligence with their actions. Meaning, are they acting as safely as can be reasonably expected, are they teaching material they are competaant to teach (not necessarly certified to teach) in a manner which is well within their experience level. Even if a guide who is certified takes a client out and they are hurt it doens't necessarliy mean that they can successfully sue the guide or company. As long as the accident wasn't due to a lack of due diligence (i.e. completely unpredictable rockfall) on the guides part how would they be held accountable. Climbing is inherently dangerous all involved should know and be told this and accidents due happen. People are not sueing a climbing partner when a accident happens even if it is their fault. The probelm lies in a situation where an inexperienced person is paying a "guide" to help ensure their safety while they learn and as stated previously, if a guide or instructor doens't do this, due to circumstances deemed within their control, then yes they may be liable, hence insurance.

However, it sounds to me like in this situation a bunch of new climbers are looking for an opportunity to learn certain skills from a more experienced climber and due to the lack of "certified guides" with "real insurance" they have decided to ask someone they view as more experienced than themselves to help teach them. If this person is willing to help them and doesn't pretend to be certified, just simply passes on what he knows from his own experience and charges the group some money for the time he spends teaching commuting and preparing, as well as the wear on his gear why should he be reasonable liable for what he shows them, so long as he is teaching correct techniques below the limit of his experience, with no false pretense. It seems to me that this situation is in the hands of the "clients", since he is not "certified" and was up front about this, the client simply need to decide, do I trust his knowledge or am I better go learn from a certified guide or not at all.

Everyone is making this more complicated than it need be, just consider it as if you are going climbing with a group of friends and one tells you a new technique, asess it, decide if you like it, read up/inquire about it and apply it when you decide you are comfortable with it. If you are not comfortable withit don't use the advice. Being taught and learning various teachniques right or wrong is not dangerous, they become so only when applied in practice. Consider it an opportunity to informally learn some potential new techniques from a climber more experienced than yourself.

If you are unsure about who you are taking a course from don't bother, or just treat what you learn as suspect until you have proven its worth to yourself. In my opionion I would take the opportunity to learn everything you can as a new climber, from as many experienced people as possible, because the more potential knowledge you arm yourself with the safer you will be and more fun you will have.

cheers, enjoy the course

john bowles

[The Mitt]

Where the hell did this come from? I just re-read the entire thread and nowhere do I see anyone giving legal advice. All I have said that you should do research and if the person does not have insurance you should consider them suspect if you do not know them and trust them. I think the majority of the people that have spoken here including yourself have given pretty good information. I mean most of the people who have posted have either worked in the insurance industry, have guided/instructed, and or gotten legal advice from lawyers.

Nobody said that by charging money you imply certification, but you are implying competence in the subject of which you teach. The best way to prove competence is through certification, one does not equal the other like you said.

I don't think anyone has contradicted anything you said. Even with the people like myself who would tell a new climber that it best not to be instructed by a uninsured guide, I and many of the others have said that its still the prospective clients choice.

If your so "agravated by the amount of inaccurate supposed legal advice" and " am by no means an authority on th subject" which no-one here has claimed to be. then why are you offering more unsolicited advice which you clearly state to "seek qualified advice not internet opinions posted by anyone with a computer." You have not said anything different here you just summed it up better than most. I'm confused what are you saying that is different than anyone else? If you recommend for people not to take heed to opinions by anyone with a computer, what makes your advice worth anything more than anyone elses? If people should ignore all of the advice on this site then why post advice of your own?

Mitt
I am not calling you out, just making a few points.