Outdoor recreation in the Pacific Northwest is not casual. We are home to some of the most beautiful and austere places in the country. People rely on equipment in real conditions—cold, wet, steep, remote—where a single failure can cascade into a catastrophic injury. Recreational product liability cases arise when gear marketed for safety or performance does not perform as promised: a defect in design, manufacturing, or warnings turns a manageable risk into preventable harm. The question is rarely whether the backcountry is dangerous; it is whether a product failed under foreseeable use in a way it should not have.

These cases involve the full range of equipment that PNW adventurers actually use. In the mountains: climbing ropes, harnesses, carabiners, cams and protection devices, belay devices, slings, anchors, bolts, and ice tools. In winter: skis, bindings, boots, avalanche airbags, beacons, probes, shovels, crampons, and traction devices. In the water: PFDs and life jackets, drysuits, harness systems for paddling and kiting, rafting frames and oar locks, and safety tethers. In the backcountry and on the trail: trekking poles, headlamps, stoves and fuel systems, bear-resistant storage products, and navigation devices. Product defects can include a manufacturing flaw that causes sudden breakage, a design choice that fails under predictable load or temperature conditions, inadequate corrosion or fatigue resistance, defective adhesives or welds, and warnings or instructions that omit known hazards or foreseeable misuse.

Recreational product cases are technical by nature and are often won or lost in the first weeks. Evidence preservation is critical: the product, packaging, manuals, tags, and proof of purchase should be retained, and the product should not be repaired, altered, or disassembled unless done under controlled conditions with documentation. Photos of the failure and the surrounding scene, weather and terrain information, and any GPS or trip logs can be valuable. Chain-of-custody matters because manufacturers and insurers frequently argue that the product was misused, modified, or improperly maintained. Successful claims separate “operator error” from true defect by showing the product failed within the range of intended or foreseeable use.

In practice, these cases turn on two things: preserving the failed product and building a technical record that explains why it failed. The claim often rises or falls on whether the gear can be shown to have broken, slipped, detached, leaked, or misfired under foreseeable conditions—not because of speculation, but because the evidence and expert analysis point to a defect in design, manufacturing, or warnings. Manufacturers and insurers frequently respond by arguing “misuse,” poor maintenance, or assumption of risk, so the work is to separate inherent outdoor danger from a product that did not perform as represented. When the record is developed—through inspection, expert input, and the manufacturer’s own testing and quality-control materials—the case can often be resolved on fair terms; if not, it is litigated with the same focus and precision required in any high-stakes technical dispute.