They essentially got the customer to accept a contract that says the software isn't designed for use in systems where failure could cause death, and that the customer accepts responsibility for using it appropriately.
I agree this whole incident was a massive blunder by CrowdStrike, but I'm not sure it makes sense to hold them liable for damage caused by customers using the product in a places they explicitly agreed not to use it in. In those cases, I think the organization that installed CrowdStrike's software in inappropriate places bears a lot of responsibility for the outcome, and their failure to understand the TOS they agreed to doesn't mean it's not a legally binding contract.
It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
If the rope climber is the same person who purchased the rope, then they get a Darwin award!
Otherwise need more detail: is the rope on loan? What's the licensing structure of the rope? Is the license still attached to the rope somehow?
Is the position that CrowdStrike should not be used on anything important because their software can not be trusted? I mean, that's where I'm at now, and I bet many others feel the same.