aero04 0 #51 January 7, 2004 QuoteGlide Path... opps I mean Flight Concepts has shown that you can change your name and come back. Could someone post a link or give a quick explanation of what happned here? Just curious about this case because I don't know anything about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #52 January 7, 2004 Quote This was NOT a jury of our peers. Interesting comment. Care to elaborate? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #53 January 7, 2004 QuoteIsn't this the guy Precision responded to in Skydiving? Wasn't he loading beyond the TSO and wasn't at least one opening beyond the TSO? There were 2 failures that were deployed within operating limits. I don't know if this was one of them. If he was outside the limits, all bets are off and he has no right to sue. If he was within the operating limits, I don't know if he should sue or not. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #54 January 7, 2004 QuoteUntil Chile comes along and buys my marvelous widget...and you have a high-speed, spinning, crazy intense mal that my widget then breaks under the stress of, and you are left paralyzed. I try to say that you knew the risks and you bought my equipment with full knowledge that I had a 'hold harmless' agreement you had to sign on the order... I am NOT SAYING that this is the case at all in this particular incident or with this company...but would you still think that I didn't owe you damages if the situation I just described happened? I think as a company I would. No, I do not and would not think that you are liable for for my injuries. I'm responsible for my actions and the subsequent reactions, I bought your product, I signed the product waiver, I read the warnings and I used your product anyways knowing full well that I could be injured or killed. Even if say you used one material over another that was superior, if that material was legal to use then you are not at fault. The only way I even think of suing you was if you were criminaly negligent, i.e. you knowling used shoddy material/manufacturing, fixed or falsified test, or switched materials ect.. after certification. It would be like if I bought a cheapo flimsy plastic hookknife and it broke while I was trying to cut myself out of a wrap and I was injured. Are you at fault for manufacting it out of plastic and not high quality aluminum or stainless steel? Hell no! Its my problem for buying a cheap flimsy hookknife. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #55 January 7, 2004 QuoteI signed the product waiver I have never signed a waiver when buying skydiving gear. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #56 January 7, 2004 This _may_ not be the fist case of a reserve from this mfg faling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #57 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteI signed the product waiver I have never signed a waiver when buying skydiving gear. Derek It's been a long time since I bought gear but wasn't there a statement hat came with the gear (maybe the orange warning label) that says use at own risk don't like the terms send the gear back unused and get your money back. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #58 January 7, 2004 QuoteIt's been a long time since I bought gear but wasn't there a statement hat came with the gear (maybe the orange warning label) that says use at own risk don't like the terms send the gear back unused and get your money back. Yes, I've seen that in owner's manuals. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyIvan 0 #59 January 7, 2004 Quote How about partnering with the Mafia, so that those who bring these lawsuits never make it to trial. Hmm. FallRate If that happened in New Jersey, it could be arranged. __________________________________________ Blue Skies and May the Force be with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #60 January 7, 2004 Ya know... if one of you guys are laid up with 50 broken bones because some manufacturer did a half ass job of attaching lines to a RESERVE (read: LAST RESORT) canopy... then if you can tell me you wouldn't sue, i'll believe it. Until then, you're all talking shit because you have no idea what you would do in that situation, you can only assume/speculate. As for you whoever is gonna go to this guys house.. wtf are you gonna do, eh? Is telling him to fuck off after he's been injured beyond repair going to make your day better? You guys amaze me, really. I'm not going to sit here and argue with any of you. Like I said, until you spend a day in the life of this guy, I don't wanna hear it. peace. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #61 January 7, 2004 It wasn't a problem with the lines, it was a problem with the binding tape, I believe. By the way, has anyone told you the dangers of skydiving? You might, wait for it... DIE, or worse, get broken. Nobody told you to jump out of an airplane. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #62 January 7, 2004 The lawsuit itself doesn't bother me nearly as much as the damages awaded by the jury. This is a case where I believe the skydiver had every right to sue. We all know the risks involved here, but we can also expect that our TSO'd reserves will not fail when operated within their limits and maintained properly. Sure a reserve can malfunction. But we're not talking about a lineover here. When one skydiver sued another for injuries he got in a freefall collision, that's just ridiculous. Freefall collisions, except maybe in the very most negligent cases, are a danger we just have to accept. Reserves failing in this way is not necessarily something we should accept. I find $150,000 perfectly acceptible. If this guy is paralyzed (which i guess he isnt), $1 mil doesn't seem so ridiculous. But $53.6 million is just retarded. Nobody deserves that kind of money for anything. I can just picture that jury so happy to put this evil company out of business, and while they're at it, maybe get some other parachute makers out of business by setting a precedent. Anything to make sure nobody gets hurt skydiving again, right? Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #63 January 7, 2004 Lets not forget that the design was tested and proven to last to TSO standerds before this incident. Its not a half ass job assembling the lines...Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #64 January 7, 2004 QuoteI do find it odd that the company apparently chose not to answer the suit. I don't. Know how much it costs to simply defend a case like that? Do you really think skydiving equipment manufacturer's have that kind of money? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #65 January 7, 2004 QuoteLets not forget that the design was tested and proven to last to TSO standerds before this incident. Its not a half ass job assembling the lines... Then why the SB? Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #66 January 7, 2004 Quote It wasn't a problem with the lines, it was a problem with the binding tape, I believe. By the way, has anyone told you the dangers of skydiving? You might, wait for it... DIE, or worse, get broken. Nobody told you to jump out of an airplane. - Jim Thanks for the correction, Jim. QuoteThe canopy suffered torn panels and ten broken suspension lines after an "instant canopy" deployment. btw, i'm fully aware the dangers of skydiving. Personally, I think they are responsible. 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. This is not a main we're talking about here. Also, this the kinda shit you have to expect when you go into selling products of this kind. I'm sure cypres would be sued if a skydiver screwed himself into the ground in headdown with his cypres on. But, that is not the point i'm arguing here. The point i'm arguing is that until that is YOU layed up with 50 broken bones, a life that is forever changed, and a pile of bills that flood your mailbox everyday... don't tell me that you are sure you wouldn't sue. Because, until you are in said situation, you cannot be sure. Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #67 January 7, 2004 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. This is'nt the first time that a Parachute maker left the civilian market, Paraflight is only making military equipment anymore where years ago they used to make parachutes for civilians also.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #68 January 7, 2004 Quoteif you can tell me you wouldn't sue, i'll believe it Never been in that situation. But I did have an injury that was skydiving related, that I could have claimed workman's comp on against the skydiving related business I worked for. I didn't. Because that wouldn't have been fair, and could have hurt the company financially at a time when that financial hit would have been a bad thing. So for me anyway the likelihood of me suing in that situation would be slim to none. Because I know the chances of getting any money out of them would also be slim to none... and because I'm from the old school - "Ya pays your money, ya takes your chances." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #69 January 7, 2004 QuoteI don't wanna hear it. Strictly speaking, you're reading it. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #70 January 7, 2004 >it should be tested, retested, retested... then tested another 100 times in diff condtions... Hense the TSO certification process with clearly defined requirements for speeds, weights and other requirements required to structrully last in tact to be considered successful. ITs not just one test drop and its granted certification... there are dozens and dozens of test drops. Some with weights, some with live people. Would you expect your reserve to work if you were overloading it and doing 160 mph+?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #71 January 7, 2004 QuoteThis 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. How much testing beyond what is required for the TSO would you want? And are you really willing to pay more for your reserve to have that testing done - cuz testing ain't cheap and the cost would be passed on to the end user? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #72 January 7, 2004 QuoteWould you expect your reserve to work if you were overloading it and doing 160 mph+? No, I wouldn't. But if I was withing the operating limitations and simply deployed it and it came apart and the manufacturer released a SB to fix what broke on the reserve, yes, I would sue. Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #73 January 7, 2004 One of the legal minds correct me if wrong. This judgment is excessive and will be put aside on appeal. Deploying past a PC in tow would not cause the canopy damage described. The canopy is still in the bad until after it passes the PC. That fact that it opened says it didn't entangle. The PC could have damaged the lines causing them to fail and the canopy opening with several lines gone could cause it to explode. jmo. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #74 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteWould you expect your reserve to work if you were overloading it and doing 160 mph+? No, I wouldn't. But if I was withing the operating limitations and simply deployed it and it came apart and the manufacturer released a SB to fix what broke on the reserve, yes, I would sue. Derek I'd venture to say I would sue as well in this instance. I thought that this guy was within the manufacturers recommended guidlines for weight/speed/etc. ? Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #75 January 7, 2004 So... if there is an unknown issue on a product and after recieving reports that the product is failing and after being presented proof of the failure the manufactor issues a fix. Now since the manufactor knows about the issue and fixed it they are now liable for the previously unknown issue? Thats a damned if you don't know about it, damned if you fix issues brought to your attention situation right? What should a company do in that situation?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
