TheMarshMan1 0 #1 March 3, 2002 There is a letter from Bill Booth in the March issue of Parachutist. I'm not going to quote it all, but he says....Quote"...a single lawsuit involving a USPA tandem instructor jumping a Cypres-equipped Vector tandem with a PD reserve and a Strong main with no valid waiver would most likely result in the end of Relative Workshop, PD, Strong Enterprises, Airtec, and USPA- plus of course, the foolish dropzone that was willing to take the risk."He was referring to dropzones "commercializing" tandem jumps and allowing persons under 18 to jump. He says that the above can happen even if the "underage student, both parents and grandparents, and all other living relatives sign a waiver..."I know very little about legal things like this...but I don't understand how all of those companies could go down, and not just the dropzone that did it. Could something like that really happen? It just doesnt make any sense to me...anyone care to elaborate? Thanks..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MarkM 0 #2 March 3, 2002 Grandma could sue the dropzone, then the manufacturer, etc.The waiver is a guard against that. But people do exaggerate legal stuff. Anybody can sue anyone for anything in this country, but it doesn't mean they'll win and it doesn't have to cost you a gazillion dollars to defend yourself.In fact I can sue you for starting this post. Are you scared yet?And before the flamefest starts the above is all IMHO, IANAL, etc etc ad nasuea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites weid14 0 #3 March 3, 2002 actaully since the individual in question is under 18, they can't legally think for themselves, and if they got hurt, then at 18 when they can magically think for themselves, they can or could sue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MarkM 0 #4 March 3, 2002 Never really thought of it in those terms too.Plus you figure if you're 18+ most judges is gonna say "well, he was an adult, he was responsible for himself" but when it's a minor things are going to get more murkey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 7 #5 March 3, 2002 Because, anytime something bad happens and people get sue-happy, they can and do name everything and everyone involved. It's happened before. The people the name probably had nothing to do with what happened, but lawerys start naming defendants in the hopes they'll just give them money instead of having to show up in court, and risk being judged by a stupid jury.Never argue with stupid people.They just drag you down 2 their level & beat you with experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #6 March 3, 2002 I'm going to preface my comments by saying quite clearly, I am not a layer (IANAL)I'm about to refer to something called "The Estate". Since I'm not assuming that everybody lives in a country based on English common law, I'll explain "The Estate". Somebody dies. In a will, they give everything to a certain group of people. Somewhere between the person dieing, and the group of people getting the stuff, all the stuff exists in a kind of legal 9th dimention called "The Estate".In most countries based upon English common law, The Estate is a legal entity. The Estate can enitiate lawsuits. It can file briefs. The Estate has almost as much legal standing as a living person.Here's where it gets fun. In the US, any interested party can initiate a lawsuit on behalf of "The Estate". The single most common form of "interested party" is the federal or state government, but family members often do this too.Any interested party can file a claim against a DZ, the manufacturer of the gear, and the USPA in the name of "The Estate". It could be the federal or state government, it could be Aunt Edith, or Grandma Jean. Literally, anybody with a relational (read: family) or representative (read: government) relationship can sue on behalf of "The Estate".All of the above is true unless the specific skydiver signs away his rights to sue. If a skydiver signs away his rights, he also signs away the rights for "The Estate" to sue on his behalf.In the US, a child under 18 can not legally sign away any right. In addition, the parents of a child can not sign away the constitutional rights of their child.What this means is that even a child is willing to give up their rights to sue, and the parents are equally willing to sign away the rights of that child, "The Estate" still has not given up that right. The fact that the child and the parent have willingly signed a piece of paper that claims to forfeit these rights is irrelevant. Neither a child or a parent can sign away the right to sue. Only a person only 18 can do this for themselves.So practically anybody and their dog has ground to sue in the US if somebody dies. They might not win, but they have grounds to sue. They might win, too.Manufacturers, DZs, the USPA - all have to protect themselves from this. At the very least they will have to hire lawyers to figure out the mess the next time some unfortunate student goes in.The court costs simply to figure out if they should be named in a lawsuit could be $10,000The court costs to defend against an actual lawsuit could be $100,000The final costs of losing a lawsuit would be well into the millions.The first option would put a serious dent into any company. Either of the second two would bankrupt all but the biggest skydiving companies.This is exactly why perfectly good companies like PDF (Parachute De France) avoid doing business in the US. Can't say that I blame them, either._AmICQ: 5578907MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skybytch 273 #7 March 3, 2002 Bill knows all about this type of thing. His company has been sued several times by the "estates" of deceased tandem students, and his company has had to pay large sums of money to get out of said suits - even though they had nothing to do with the incidents involved other than manufacturing the gear or rating the TI involved - I know of one such situation where the person who died was jumping with a RWS rated instructor using Strong equipment - and RWS STILL had to pay....Wrong? imho very much so. But that's the US legal system for you.... pull and flare,lisa--What would Scooby Doo? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PLFKING 4 #8 March 3, 2002 Quoteand his company has had to pay large sums of money to get out of said suits This is the sad part to me.......that someone can be in the right, but STILL have to pay just to prove it. I think one lawsuit such as this could ruin the entire skydiving industry.....seems that prices will go up just to offset the possible added expense of defending one's self.Also, I thought Mr. Booth brought up another very relevant point......that of the 16-year-old-girl telling her mother that "the big ugly tandem master grabbed my breast". How could any tandem master avoid any accidental close contact with an underage female passenger ? And in the 99% of the cases where said TM would be perfectly in line with his normal procedures, how many first-timers are going to know that all that contact is neccessary, and unavoidable ? Not to mention the fact that the most injurious aspect is the accusation itself, whether it's true or not......that could follow a TM throughout his entire career.I think Bill was correct when he said that the vast majority of people only jump once -- what does it matter if you get their money at 18, instead of 16 ?Skydiving is a sport for adults....it needs to remain that way.Don Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 643 #9 March 3, 2002 The other side of this arguement is the "deep pocket" theory.Under the deep pocket theory, it does not matter who caused the accident. Lawyers for the plaintif use the shotgun technique to name everyone vaguely connected with the accident, in hopes that one of them is wealthy. Then they try to sue the ass of the wealthiest defendant.The ultimate foolishness was a lawsuit launched against Para-Gear a few years ago. Para-Gear was sued because the reserve packing data card had the Para-Gear logo printed on it. Para-Gear did not sell the gear, nor had they ever done any maintenance on the rig. Heck! Para-Gear had never even seen the gear involved in the accident!But, Para-Gear still had to waste thousands of dollars defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit.Knowing that defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit will cost them over $10,000, many companies just pay blood money up front. USPA has paid their way out fo several frivolous lawsuits this way.The solution is very simple and it has worked well in Canada for many years: loser pays all court costs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PLFKING 4 #10 March 3, 2002 Quoteit has worked well in Canada for many years: loser pays all court costs.I could totally get behind this sentiment.....but it will never happen here in the States.....the lawyers wouldn't stand for it. Think about this fact for a moment -- I read in Reader's Digest that there are currently more students in law school in the US than there are accredited lawyers in the US. I think "litigation-happy" America is going to be getting even "happier" when all these folks graduate.Don Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skymedic 0 #11 March 4, 2002 THis is why we need some sort of tort reform in the US....marcBSBD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jtval 0 #12 March 4, 2002 it used to be a small profession from what i remember....thats why when we were younger all of our parents said GO be a laywer or a doctor. and most of us said Kiss MY ass. but the real problem with lawyers is that there are WAY TOO MANY NOW and they all find one loop hole to sue the shit outta some unfortunate soul who has to pay for them to eat. like all these [taking deep breath]"did you slip on a banana peel between the ages of 7-30 while you were shopping at local banana shop stepping over the 'watch for falling bananas' sign. well i can help you get thousands for your stupidity" lawyers[taking deep breath]theyre are just petty bastards sucking the money outta the innocent by-stander for not jumping in front of the car to save the idiot who ignored the traffic signal!any way thanks for clearing this QuoteI am not a layer (IANAL) andy man, i was fukn confused when i saw it!getting high is fun, but coming down is the best partJT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skymedic 0 #13 March 4, 2002 Yeah, JT...I couldnt figure that out eather....andy, WTF??marcBSBD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freefallfreak 0 #14 March 4, 2002 Would one of you kind, generous, gorgeous, sweet ladies of the skydiving community teach Andy how to be a "layer"??? LOL!!! (Andyman, don't ever say I didn't try to do something nice for you...lol)TripleF "If you have something vital and it's sincere, you can communicate." Butch Trucks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #15 March 4, 2002 Thanks FFF.Lookin out for the team!_AmICQ: 5578907MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skymedic 0 #16 March 4, 2002 Damn canadiEns!!!!marcBSBD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
MarkM 0 #2 March 3, 2002 Grandma could sue the dropzone, then the manufacturer, etc.The waiver is a guard against that. But people do exaggerate legal stuff. Anybody can sue anyone for anything in this country, but it doesn't mean they'll win and it doesn't have to cost you a gazillion dollars to defend yourself.In fact I can sue you for starting this post. Are you scared yet?And before the flamefest starts the above is all IMHO, IANAL, etc etc ad nasuea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weid14 0 #3 March 3, 2002 actaully since the individual in question is under 18, they can't legally think for themselves, and if they got hurt, then at 18 when they can magically think for themselves, they can or could sue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkM 0 #4 March 3, 2002 Never really thought of it in those terms too.Plus you figure if you're 18+ most judges is gonna say "well, he was an adult, he was responsible for himself" but when it's a minor things are going to get more murkey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #5 March 3, 2002 Because, anytime something bad happens and people get sue-happy, they can and do name everything and everyone involved. It's happened before. The people the name probably had nothing to do with what happened, but lawerys start naming defendants in the hopes they'll just give them money instead of having to show up in court, and risk being judged by a stupid jury.Never argue with stupid people.They just drag you down 2 their level & beat you with experience Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #6 March 3, 2002 I'm going to preface my comments by saying quite clearly, I am not a layer (IANAL)I'm about to refer to something called "The Estate". Since I'm not assuming that everybody lives in a country based on English common law, I'll explain "The Estate". Somebody dies. In a will, they give everything to a certain group of people. Somewhere between the person dieing, and the group of people getting the stuff, all the stuff exists in a kind of legal 9th dimention called "The Estate".In most countries based upon English common law, The Estate is a legal entity. The Estate can enitiate lawsuits. It can file briefs. The Estate has almost as much legal standing as a living person.Here's where it gets fun. In the US, any interested party can initiate a lawsuit on behalf of "The Estate". The single most common form of "interested party" is the federal or state government, but family members often do this too.Any interested party can file a claim against a DZ, the manufacturer of the gear, and the USPA in the name of "The Estate". It could be the federal or state government, it could be Aunt Edith, or Grandma Jean. Literally, anybody with a relational (read: family) or representative (read: government) relationship can sue on behalf of "The Estate".All of the above is true unless the specific skydiver signs away his rights to sue. If a skydiver signs away his rights, he also signs away the rights for "The Estate" to sue on his behalf.In the US, a child under 18 can not legally sign away any right. In addition, the parents of a child can not sign away the constitutional rights of their child.What this means is that even a child is willing to give up their rights to sue, and the parents are equally willing to sign away the rights of that child, "The Estate" still has not given up that right. The fact that the child and the parent have willingly signed a piece of paper that claims to forfeit these rights is irrelevant. Neither a child or a parent can sign away the right to sue. Only a person only 18 can do this for themselves.So practically anybody and their dog has ground to sue in the US if somebody dies. They might not win, but they have grounds to sue. They might win, too.Manufacturers, DZs, the USPA - all have to protect themselves from this. At the very least they will have to hire lawyers to figure out the mess the next time some unfortunate student goes in.The court costs simply to figure out if they should be named in a lawsuit could be $10,000The court costs to defend against an actual lawsuit could be $100,000The final costs of losing a lawsuit would be well into the millions.The first option would put a serious dent into any company. Either of the second two would bankrupt all but the biggest skydiving companies.This is exactly why perfectly good companies like PDF (Parachute De France) avoid doing business in the US. Can't say that I blame them, either._AmICQ: 5578907MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #7 March 3, 2002 Bill knows all about this type of thing. His company has been sued several times by the "estates" of deceased tandem students, and his company has had to pay large sums of money to get out of said suits - even though they had nothing to do with the incidents involved other than manufacturing the gear or rating the TI involved - I know of one such situation where the person who died was jumping with a RWS rated instructor using Strong equipment - and RWS STILL had to pay....Wrong? imho very much so. But that's the US legal system for you.... pull and flare,lisa--What would Scooby Doo? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFKING 4 #8 March 3, 2002 Quoteand his company has had to pay large sums of money to get out of said suits This is the sad part to me.......that someone can be in the right, but STILL have to pay just to prove it. I think one lawsuit such as this could ruin the entire skydiving industry.....seems that prices will go up just to offset the possible added expense of defending one's self.Also, I thought Mr. Booth brought up another very relevant point......that of the 16-year-old-girl telling her mother that "the big ugly tandem master grabbed my breast". How could any tandem master avoid any accidental close contact with an underage female passenger ? And in the 99% of the cases where said TM would be perfectly in line with his normal procedures, how many first-timers are going to know that all that contact is neccessary, and unavoidable ? Not to mention the fact that the most injurious aspect is the accusation itself, whether it's true or not......that could follow a TM throughout his entire career.I think Bill was correct when he said that the vast majority of people only jump once -- what does it matter if you get their money at 18, instead of 16 ?Skydiving is a sport for adults....it needs to remain that way.Don Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #9 March 3, 2002 The other side of this arguement is the "deep pocket" theory.Under the deep pocket theory, it does not matter who caused the accident. Lawyers for the plaintif use the shotgun technique to name everyone vaguely connected with the accident, in hopes that one of them is wealthy. Then they try to sue the ass of the wealthiest defendant.The ultimate foolishness was a lawsuit launched against Para-Gear a few years ago. Para-Gear was sued because the reserve packing data card had the Para-Gear logo printed on it. Para-Gear did not sell the gear, nor had they ever done any maintenance on the rig. Heck! Para-Gear had never even seen the gear involved in the accident!But, Para-Gear still had to waste thousands of dollars defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit.Knowing that defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit will cost them over $10,000, many companies just pay blood money up front. USPA has paid their way out fo several frivolous lawsuits this way.The solution is very simple and it has worked well in Canada for many years: loser pays all court costs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFKING 4 #10 March 3, 2002 Quoteit has worked well in Canada for many years: loser pays all court costs.I could totally get behind this sentiment.....but it will never happen here in the States.....the lawyers wouldn't stand for it. Think about this fact for a moment -- I read in Reader's Digest that there are currently more students in law school in the US than there are accredited lawyers in the US. I think "litigation-happy" America is going to be getting even "happier" when all these folks graduate.Don Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #11 March 4, 2002 THis is why we need some sort of tort reform in the US....marcBSBD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #12 March 4, 2002 it used to be a small profession from what i remember....thats why when we were younger all of our parents said GO be a laywer or a doctor. and most of us said Kiss MY ass. but the real problem with lawyers is that there are WAY TOO MANY NOW and they all find one loop hole to sue the shit outta some unfortunate soul who has to pay for them to eat. like all these [taking deep breath]"did you slip on a banana peel between the ages of 7-30 while you were shopping at local banana shop stepping over the 'watch for falling bananas' sign. well i can help you get thousands for your stupidity" lawyers[taking deep breath]theyre are just petty bastards sucking the money outta the innocent by-stander for not jumping in front of the car to save the idiot who ignored the traffic signal!any way thanks for clearing this QuoteI am not a layer (IANAL) andy man, i was fukn confused when i saw it!getting high is fun, but coming down is the best partJT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #13 March 4, 2002 Yeah, JT...I couldnt figure that out eather....andy, WTF??marcBSBD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefallfreak 0 #14 March 4, 2002 Would one of you kind, generous, gorgeous, sweet ladies of the skydiving community teach Andy how to be a "layer"??? LOL!!! (Andyman, don't ever say I didn't try to do something nice for you...lol)TripleF "If you have something vital and it's sincere, you can communicate." Butch Trucks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #15 March 4, 2002 Thanks FFF.Lookin out for the team!_AmICQ: 5578907MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #16 March 4, 2002 Damn canadiEns!!!!marcBSBD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
