I hate seeing this crap, we all know the risk.

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

This was NOT a jury of our peers.

Yeah no kidding. I was thinking that there was no way the plaintiff allowed skydivers on the jury.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

This judgment is excessive and will be put aside on appeal

Yeah - an appeal would be a good idea... but that takes even more money than the first trial... the manufacturer didnt represent themselves at the first trial because of the cost.

The fact is that canopies are made to a TSO. We are all told this. We all know a reserves operating limitations, (if we dont actually know there is enough info out there about this that we are deamed to know). If we use a reserve outside these operating limitations then we accept that risk as our own - ie NO SUING!

By this I mean if it fails while your in HD - your problem. If it fails while your loading if above reccomendations - your problem. If it fails due to a mal (shit happens style like horse-shoe or line over) - your problem.

If we are using our reserve within those operating limits and the canopy still fails then that is a whole different ball game. In England we have a principal where a product sold must do what it says on the box, I assume you have the same pricipal - manufacturers cannot just lie to you, right? The "box" (be that the hand book or the TSO) to a reserve says it will work when opened at a certain speed and loaded up to wing loading. You are entitled to rely on what that "box" says.

So if you jump out of a plane and are loading the parachute ok and are going slow enough and the parachute blows up on opening you are legaly entitled to finacial reparation for all the consequenses of that event. The company promised you something and failed to deliver it.

Now ask yourselves if you know that has happend here or not.

Do you know this guys wing loading?
Do you know how fast he was going?
Do you know if his reserve hit his pilot chute on deployment?

I suspect not. You can't therefore adress the question of whether he could sue. You may feel able to say if you feel he should sue... but then I would again suggest not as you do not have all of the facts on which to base your conclusion.

I do not know if this guy is entitled to damages or not. I am not worried by that. What worries me is that the manufacturer was put in a position by the American legal system where they felt the could not defend the claim. This ment that they did not have a voice in court and the jury just accepted what the claimant's lawyer said. Therefore the Jury did not know if the guy was entitled to damages or not.

Now is it a good thing to have a jury passing judgement on something they do not know about?

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

It hasn't been brought up on here yet that quite possibly this man had no other alternative but to press the lawsuit...why? I (was) a licensed insurance agent, so let me explain: . . .

. . . my skydiving 'injury'. I botched a landing and sprained/dislocated/really screwed up my thumb . . .


. . . It's not always your 'decision' to press a lawsuit. When insurance is involved (ESPECIALLY medical), it is often not something you can object to, unless you can foot the bill wholely on your own...which ER of this nature -I'm guessing- $100,000 plus...I don't know what all of you do for a living, but I'm not able to drop that kinda change.

Either way, if I recall Chile's orig post here, Rubio did not seek damages of this amount, guys...the jury awarded it in this ridiculous figure...

I have never heard of this happening. It shed's a different light on this lawsuit. It would be interesting to know if this was the case.

[bmcd308 0]

>>I'm sure cypres would be sued if a skydiver screwed himself into the ground in headdown with his cypres on. <<

A cypres is no guarantee you'll survive a no-pull. Read through the fatalaties database.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[PhreeZone 20]

Medical insurance does not ever seek out compensation and damage amounts. If they can pass the bills off to someone else thats all that they want and most of the tiem they will disappear rapidly after some one takes that chunk of debt away from them. Anything thats won will go to the insurance company to relieve them of the responcibility of your current or future medical bills related to this injury.

If you are being awarded personal injury amounts for pain and suffering, the its a civil lawsuit that was brought by your own choice.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[lazyfrog 0]

so what is teh use in signing these 15 pages waivers like you guys have in the US ???
By the way, I'm gonna sue Bill Booth for a few millons ,on the introductory video I was shown in Homestead, he said it was a high risk activity, but never warned it was addictive

----------
Fumer tue, péter pue
-------------
ourson #10, Mosquito Uno, CBT 579

[Ron 10]

Quote

I have never signed a waiver when buying skydiving gear.

I have on a Stiletto, both a type and size waiver in 1993.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

This shit is last resort... it should be tested, retested, retested... then tested another 100 times in diff condtions... until they are 110% confident it will indeed save a skydivers life, they shouldn't sell it as a reserve canopy

Are you willing to pay 2 grand for a reserve canopy?

Someone has to pay for the testing.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

You won't find any links on here to the GP-> FC saga since its before 90% of the jumpers on here time (Mine included)

Basically my understanding is GP made a canopy the Nova that collapsed low and injured a few jumpers and killed a few others. GP reorganized, changed the name of their canopies, recertified the reserves, changed a few people internally and came back as Flight Concepts.

The Nova collapsed without warning several times. At first Glide Path said that they were fine. Then they said not to jump them in turbulent conditions. Then they grounded them, after a jumper in Zhills went in, and the jumpers burned his canopy in the fire pit...That was about 1994?

Glide Path then came out and said that the Nova was fine to jump....then the next day they went out of buisness, and opend as Flight Concepts.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

SB20011221 was issued on 21 December, 2001. This incident happened in November, 2001, before the SB was released. I do not know if this 181-M was affected by the SB. The SB does indicate that it was issued in response to 2 –M’s failing after being deployed within operating limits.

Now I could be wrong, but I don't think the manufactorer redid the TSO with this mod....It is quite common not to redo it all the time.

Racers are still using the old TSO if I am not mistaken....Mirage is useing an old one, same with Vector, and Sunpath just redid it a few years ago.

If he was within the limits....Then he has a case and I would sue as well.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Do you know this guys wing loading?

No, and if he was outside the TSO limits, he had no business suing. If he was inside the TSO limits, then I'm not sure. I do know that 2 reserves within TSO limits did fail, per the SB.

Quote

Do you know how fast he was going?

Same as above.

Quote

Do you know if his reserve hit his pilot chute on deployment?

Shouldn't matter, the lines are longer than the PC bridle and should not affect reserve deployment.

Ron- I never had to sign a waiver from a manufacturer. By the time I jumped a Stiletto, the waivers were gone. The article says that he signed a waiver. I bought an affected -M in 1998 and didn't have to sign anything. A label is not signing a waiver.

Derek

[mr2mk1g 10]

They’re more rhetorical questions than anything. I’m simply saying that no one really knows enough here to say if there is a case. It’s possible that the canopy was being used outside of its proscribed operating parameters (many are). In that case there can be no liability.

There are also however, at least prima-facie indicators that the canopy may simply have failed on opening whilst being used within the operating parameters. If that is so there may well be civil liability and the guy my well have a genuine right to sue. Like I said, the manufacturer promised something and then failed to deliver it.

But none of us knows for sure which one. I am only worried that the jury also did not know which one.

And the damages are ludicrous – no system should allow figures like that to be awarded.

[Ron 10]

Quote

We all know the risk

And thats not true....

I know folks that think this sport is safe.

I will be honest, the first real wake up call I got shocked...An RSL was attributed to a fatality...then several more were. Good God an RSL was there to save you, not kill you.

2nd was when a buddy burned in WITH a CYPRES that didn't fire....Did you know the CYPRES does not arm until 1500 feet? I didn't, and a lot of folks didn't at that time.

3rd time was the Micro Raven deal...The fix was BS.

#1 I had 200ish jumps
#2 I had 400ish
#3 1500 or so.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[sdgregory 0]

After reading all the post I tend to agree with you. We seem to have so little information to go on that an intelligent argument based on fact cannot seem to be made either way.


And I am still appaulled by the rediculous damages awarded.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

This judgment is excessive and will be put aside on appeal.

I doubt this very much.

Keep in mind that Precision didn't even attempt to defend themselves. They didn't show up in court.

In court were the plaintiffs, the lawyers, the judge, and jury. It was essentially a trial in absentia because the defendents didn't bother to show up. Precision explained their actions by claiming they couldn't afford their legal fees. I don't think "we didn't bother to show up" is grounds for appeal.

I am very curious what will happen next. Since Precision has stated that they have no intention of paying, I suspect the court will order them into bankrupcy.

Not showing up at all seems like a very poor idea. At least George should have showed up, represented himself and stated "hey, they knew the risks".

The Precision SB and recall left a bad taste in my mouth back a year or two ago. I'm not surprised that there's more to the story that just now coming out.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[skybytch 273]

Quote

The article says that he signed a waiver.

Pretty much every waiver I've ever signed includes equipment manufacturers in the list of "released parties." The one I'm looking at right now includes "any and all manufacturers, designers and distributors of any and all parachutes, equipment, devices, parachute containers, automatic activation devices, hardware, altimeters and warning devices, which may at any time be used in my parachute jumping activities..."

Most equipment dealers use something along the lines of this to disclaim any liability. ParaGear prints theirs on the first page of their catalog.

PD's disclaimer is on page four of their reserve owner's manual.

If you buy and use a piece of skydiving equipment, you do so with full knowledge that it can and may fail - and you accept that risk for yourself. That's my take on it anyway... but I'm not a lawyer, and again I'm from the old school.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

i know and expect shit to happen in skydiving. but i also expect my gear to work at least up to the bare f-ing minimums of the TSOs that have been set forth. i will NOT knowingly jump substandard equipment...which would include a fucked up reserve.

arlo

Which is why I would never jump a Precision product. When I was trying to purchase a used reserve, I had to go through several SB's just to make sure the reserve I was thinking of buying didn't fit into a small space of serial numbers. Needless to say, I found it the wiser choice not to go that route. Now, why would I want to jump one of their mains?

As far as ACME talking about insurance liability - My insurance company chased me down for a year because I refused to tell them WHERE I injured my ankle (it was at a dropzone in the middle of the night, after too many beers doing something stupid I was warned not to do). I knew they would go after the DZO for liability even thou I was a waivered guest. They threatened me with insurance fraud, etc....but after a year they stop hounding me and just paid the bills. The final cost to me was $201 (my 20% per the coverage) and some lasting damage to my ankle.

There are ways around the bully tactics that insurance companies pull, and with perseverance you can usually win out. My PPO was not going to pay for the PT I needed for a lower back injury just because they felt like changing their mind after they saw how much it was going to cost. It took four months of phone calls to get them to pay. Once I started to inform them that I was taping the phone calls for legal use, they changed their tunes and paid every penny.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[mr2mk1g 10]

OK, I've red the disclaimers. And now I must bow out of the legal end of the discussion.

I can tell you that they would not stand up for more than 5 minutes in an English court - but thats not where this case took place. You are barred by statute from waiving liability like that in this country but I know that such limitations do not always exist in America.

I therefore cannot adress that issue for you as it lies outside of my jurisdiction... you need Lawrocket (available now in all good stores)

[rehmwa 2]

Ok - Since this strikes so close to home. $50+ million dollar awards.

An example of how the jury (regular people) just automatically think that a "COMPANY" is always rich.


Who has changed their mind about limiting jury putative awards?

(Wasn't this proposed by the current admin? Which industry was it? Aren't the democrats against limiting putative damages?)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mr2mk1g 10]

Your insurance co. will sue to get back any money they paid to you (your insured losses). You cannot stop them doing this - you already gave them permission to do so when you signed your insurance contract.

Unless you have legal expenses cover, they will not care one shit if you get any compensation from the third party for your uninsured losses. If you do have legal expenses cover its up to you if you sue, its just that they pick up the fees if you want to (so long as you use their lawyers).

This guy got personal injuries damages - rightly or wrongly he chose to sue.

[jlmiracle 7]

Oh this pisses me off so bad. Maybe this guy should go back to grade school so he can learn to read.

And the wifey gets $300,000 for not getting any for a while? Whatever happened to in sickness and in health, for better or for worse. Maybe she was looking for the payoff.

As to those of you who it appears you WANT to sue, skydiving probably isn't for you. You can DIE skydiving, you can become seriously hurt to the point you wish you were dead.

Wasn't it Shakespear that wanted to kill all the lawyers? Not such a bad idea.

Done ranting, thanks.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I see no reason for anyone to file a lawsuit in this sport. Even if you do everything right you can still die, and it was your choice to leave the plane. However we have made the decision that it is an "accetable" risk and play the odds - and your number can be up at any given time for a variety of reasons.

Do you feel that Reflex should have been sued for the closing loop fatality a few years ago? What about Sunpath that had a fatality for the same reason only a few days later? Even with the SB and those two deaths, there are companies that still place the closing loop inside the main tray - the gromet may not be able to cause a problem, but there is still something there to tangle with the lines.

I jump a Javelin which as we all know has the closing loop inside the tray still - I have the SB done, but there is still a chance that something could happen with it, and I could bounce. And I know that full well - yet if I was injured or killed because of this, I wouldn't want anyone to sue on my behalf. Why? I made the choice.

I have been injured in this sport several times, and at least one of those times a lawsuit could have been filed - but I chose not too. From that incident I have a bum knee that no longer allows me to run and can cause a decent amount of pain at times; and I will need surgery on it as I get older. To this day, I am glad I never considerd to sue.

Recently I found that my old Javelin had an issue that was tearing the main lift web, and it was hidden from site during gear checks - this same setup killed a jumper in Miami this past year. If this kid had not gone in, it would have happened to me eventually. Once I found out, I sat down with my family and close friends and explained what could have happened to me - all of them said they would have sued. After talking to them for a few hours, and explaining how making the choice to jump is my responsiblity, they promised never to sue if anything was to happen to me, no matter what.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Nightingale 0]

Even in the US, AFAIK, you can't have a waiver that releases a party from being sued for actions of "gross negligence".

If they were aware of the problems with the reserve and did nothing, that would probably constitute gross negligence.

But, I'm not a lawyer (yet), so I couldn't say for sure, but here's an example of a case regarding a health club, and the findings of the appeals court:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xu v. Gay, 668 N.W.2d 166 (Ct. App., Mich., 2003)

In a case where a patron of a health club died from injuries when he fell from a treadmill, an appeals court held that while the liability waiver would protect the club from suit in case of ordinary negligence, it would not relieve the club in the event that gross negligence could be shown.

DECISION: Gross negligence is conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results. If plaintiffs could demonstrate such negligence, then there could be a cause of action against the defendants. The liability waiver signed by Yan could release defendants from liability for ordinary negligence, but would not apply in case of gross negligence, which would have to be demonstrated at trial.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Courts have ruled that waivers relating to sport activities (e.g., skiing, scuba diving, auto racing) are not against public policy. Since sport businesses do not provide an essential public service, any economic advantage in bargaining that a small business may have over customers will not create unequal bargaining power since customers have a multitude of alternatives. Waivers seeking to protect from liability for gross negligence or willful and wanton acts are invalid.

[billvon 3,085]

>this is like suing firestone because all the faulty tires fucking blew
> out on your SUV while you were on a sunday drive thru the
> mountains and caused you to careen down the cliff.

In that example, why were you driving in such a manner that a tire blowout (which is a common problem) caused you to lose control of the vehicle? More care in choosing and operating the vehicle could have prevented the accident. Tires fail; if you bet your life on them not failing, you're going to lose that bet once in a while.

> but i also expect my gear to work at least up to the bare f-ing
> minimums of the TSOs that have been set forth.

Even a properly assembled, maintained and operated parachute can fail - whether main or reserve. That failure can cripple or kill you. If you wish to avoid that risk, you can avoid jumping - but there's no practical way to do it if you do jump.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Wasn't it Shakespear that wanted to kill all the lawyers? Not such a bad idea.

Remember, the lawyers are only one part of the equation. Don't forget the jury. It was the jury who gave the super-sized award, why? Because one day they think they'll get hurt and get the same settlement. Damn the jury, that's at the root of this problem, I think.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.