freefalle 0 #1 August 25, 2004 I was just sitting here thinking about a conversation I had today so I thought I'd ask for opinions. I have little actual knowledge of the investigative process and the proceeding is simply a hypothesis When a skydiving fatality occurs, the police are called, they show up they take some pictures they interview some people they leave, then they try to write a report about something they don't know jack shit about (skydiving) they assume because everybody told them the death was an accident, that it was and unless there is an OBVIOUS sign of foul play they stamp the death an accident and close the case. The gear involved is turned over to the FAA who conducts a thrid party investigation to see if they can determine what caused the incident. What happens if during the course of the FAA investigation, it is discovered that the cause of the accident/death was the specific result of the actions or inactions of one person i.e. a packer or a rigger? Should that person be charged with criminal negligence? Are the results of the FAA's investigation public record? I assume they are, but if not, should they be? I was just wondering what other people thought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefalle 0 #3 August 25, 2004 Im speaking of here in the states. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #4 August 25, 2004 I believe the appropriate phrase is something like: "wanton disregard for human life." Beyond that it's out of my jurisdiction and I'm not qualified to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #5 August 25, 2004 criminal negligence : a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence —compare GROSS NEGLIGENCE gross negligence : negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights —see also RECKLESSNESS —compare CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in this entry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2fat2fly 0 #6 August 25, 2004 This doesn't cover criminal, but as far as civil-I've explained to my wife that the DZO could shoot me while in the aircraft and she couldn't sue. Of course, then I added a clause to my will saying that all of my assets will be liquidated to pay for the DZ's defense if anyone sues if I get myself dead. I'm not sure how it would hold up in court if challenged, but at least the judge would be very clear on my feelings and intent,I am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #7 August 25, 2004 QuoteI was just sitting here thinking about a conversation I had today so I thought I'd ask for opinions. I have little actual knowledge of the investigative process and the proceeding is simply a hypothesis When a skydiving fatality occurs, the police are called, they show up they take some pictures they interview some people they leave, then they try to write a report about something they don't know jack shit about (skydiving) they assume because everybody told them the death was an accident, that it was and unless there is an OBVIOUS sign of foul play they stamp the death an accident and close the case. The gear involved is turned over to the FAA who conducts a thrid party investigation to see if they can determine what caused the incident. What happens if during the course of the FAA investigation, it is discovered that the cause of the accident/death was the specific result of the actions or inactions of one person i.e. a packer or a rigger? Should that person be charged with criminal negligence? Are the results of the FAA's investigation public record? I assume they are, but if not, should they be? I was just wondering what other people thought. There was a case some 10+ years ago when a DZO (now out of the business) installed an improperly stored old engine on a Twin Beech, using unlicensed mechanics to do the work. The powerplant was not properly tested after the installation, in particular the prop was not tested over its whole range of operation. The plane had not received its (required) 100 hour inspection. 11 skydivers died in the subsequent crash. I'd say that fits the bill.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #8 August 25, 2004 Legally........nothing since the waiver absolves the DZ from ALL responsibility. Period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crutch 0 #9 August 25, 2004 QuoteLegally........nothing since the waiver absolves the DZ from ALL responsibility. Period. Do you honestly believe that?blue skies, art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #10 August 25, 2004 QuoteDo you honestly believe that? I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it HAS been tested in court in recent years. Waivers have stood up so far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crutch 0 #11 August 25, 2004 I know someone who lost, anyway the waiver says you understand there is an inherent risk, it doesn't release the DZ from negilgence.blue skies, art Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Clownburner 0 #12 August 25, 2004 QuoteLegally........nothing since the waiver absolves the DZ from ALL responsibility. Period. IANAL, but I think at least in this state, you cannot waive liability for gross negligence. Just like I can't make you sign a waiver that says I'm allowed to kill and eat you (or rather I could, but it would not be recognized as valid by the courts).7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez "I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #13 August 25, 2004 I know, at least in California, that you can't waiver negiligence when public interest is involved._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #14 August 25, 2004 you beat me_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #15 August 25, 2004 Quote What happens if during the course of the FAA investigation, it is discovered that the cause of the accident/death was the specific result of the actions or inactions of one person i.e. a packer or a rigger? Should that person be charged with criminal negligence? Only if they deviated from the accepted standards of performance. Example: Every rigger I know has a system for tracking their tools. Leaving a molar strap arround a reserve means you didn't do that and were criminally negligent. Counter example: The need for added material arround grommets and proper seating to prevent line snags was not understood. Fatalities before the service bulletins came out were not due to negligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #16 August 25, 2004 You would have to prove that the person/establishment had a duty to act/perform/provide/ect.. You would have to prove that they did not act/perform/provide/ect. like required. You would have to prove that injuries/loss of something was sustained You would have to prove that the injuries sustained were directly related to a failure to act/perform/provide/ect. That is how it has been taught to me for over 7 years in my Fire Service/Law Enforcement capacity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 August 25, 2004 QuoteLegally........nothing since the waiver absolves the DZ from ALL responsibility. Period. All right, Clay. There seems to be a bit of a miscommunication here. The waiver (attempts) to absolve of civil liability. A waiver will not waive criminal liability. Jack Kevorkian had waivers. He's serving time. In regard to the actual question, what constitutes "criminal negligence" depends on the statutes of the various states. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
