Skydiver sues over body breakage

[ltdiver 3]

Posting this in the Speakers Corner because I believe this will be getting some heat with the replies.

I'm sure that there is more first hand information on this incident, for we all know that the news wire can get things -really- out of context. However it appears that this lawsuit is real.

IMO, a PRO skydiver (one who is PRO rated and has demonstrated the judgement to have properly been awarded this distinction) should take complete responsibility for his/her actions. NOT blame someone else for their screw up. As it appears to be the case, if this article is correct in its perception.

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/mail/tm_objectid=14925372&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=skydiver-to-sue-over-leg-horror-name_page.html

"Skydiver to sue over leg horror

Nov 29 2004

By Tony Collins, Evening Mail

An RAF skydiver who lost a leg after a charity parachute jump at Villa Park went disastrously wrong has launched a compensation bid.

Ex-Flt Sgt Nigel Rogoff had his left leg amputated above the knee after crashing into the Trinity Road stand and plunging 80ft to the ground in 1998.

The gruesome collision at half-time in an Aston Villa vs. Arsenal game was witnessed by 40,000 spectators in the ground - and millions of television viewers.

Mr Rogoff, who was dressed as Father Christmas for the fateful jump, is suing the Ministry of Defence for negligence.

But the MoD is strongly contesting the claim, which will now be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

It is understood that the former RAF officer, who moved to live in South Africa last year, is seeking compensation of more than £50,000 for personal injury.

The basis of his claim is that the jump should never have taken place because winds at the stadium were gusting at between 20 and 25mph, well above the safety limit for parachuting.

Mr Rogoff had to be given more than 170 pints of blood in a city hospital.

An MoD spokeswoman said today: "Mr Rogoff is suing the Ministry of Defence for a claim of negligence, but we consider claims for compensation on the basis of legal liability.

"In this case, following investigations, we do not believe we have a liability. Therefore, the case is proceeding to trial."

Mr Rogoff, a veteran of nearly 6,000 jumps, was leading the RAF Hawks Display Team on the jump into the Aston Villa ground when a gust of wind seemed to push him on to the stand.

As well as losing his leg, his pelvis was smashed, both hips were shattered and several ribs were broken.

The claim will be heard within the next few weeks.

tony_collins@mrn.co.uk"

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[metalslug 36]

Would demo jumpers typicaly drop wind-drift indicators before a jump like this ?
...or would they be in communication with support staff on the ground to give them wind speed and direction ?

(Hypotheticaly)...
If the ground staff did not report the wind conditions accurately and honestly to the jumpers, misleading them about the ground winds so as not to cancel the demo, would this guy have a better case ?


-

No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post.

[dorbie 0]

Read the article, he's suing the MOD, i.e. his employers and presumably the folks who ordered him to jump, so the circumstances don't seem like a typical demo jump.

FWIW I've seen video of this recently and it looked like he decided start a dive to set up some sort of swoop and misjudged it, hitting the roof. From the video it sure didn't look like diving his canopy so close to the roof was his only option, but what do I know, let's listen to what the jumper has to say about his mistakes:

"I don't know what made me use that particular 'chute but it turned out to be a mistake. "It was like trying to drive a Formula One racing car up a narrow high street."
"It was a perfect descent to start with," he explained. "My main chute opened normally and I began guiding myself towards the stadium. "Nearing the ground, I put in a final turn and began heading towards the centre circle. But something was wrong. I was coming in too quickly and was over the roof of the stand. I turned again but that quickened my descent even more. Suddenly I was gathering speed too quickly. I was sucked towards the roof of the stand. A second later, everything went black."

His football fan brother Andy, aged 35, was the first to reach him and Nigel recalled: "I reached up, pulled his face close to mine and just said: 'I really ****** up this time, didn't I?'"

[feuergnom 29]

***the folks who ordered him to jump


just for my understanding this right: how can anybody "order" you to jump a demo, when you think conditions are against jumping?

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Mr Rogoff, a veteran of nearly 6,000 jumps,

and

Quote

The basis of his claim is that the jump should never have taken place because winds at the stadium were gusting at between 20 and 25mph, well above the safety limit for parachuting.

And he couldn't make that decision for himself? Stay in the fucking plane, or land out.

Asshat.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Would demo jumpers typicaly drop wind-drift indicators before a jump like this ?
...or would they be in communication with support staff on the ground to give them wind speed and direction ?

Even suposing neither of these thing happened (which I'll bet the did, it being a millitary op) someone with 6,000 ought to be able to judge the winds from the door of the A/C much less under canopy.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

"I don't know what made me use that particular 'chute but it turned out to be a mistake.

I've seen the video as well, and I think he buried himself with this statement.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

Mr Rogoff, a veteran of nearly 6,000 jumps,

and

Quote

The basis of his claim is that the jump should never have taken place because winds at the stadium were gusting at between 20 and 25mph, well above the safety limit for parachuting.

And he couldn't make that decision for himself? Stay in the fucking plane, or land out.

Asshat.

To add to that...he was the director of that jump! The one leading the way!

Quote

Mr Rogoff, a veteran of nearly 6,000 jumps, was leading the RAF Hawks Display Team on the jump into the Aston Villa ground

Shouldn't he, then, be sueing himself?

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[ltdiver 3]

Some more interesting reading on rec.skydiving back in 1999, after the incident.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[freethefly 6]

Seeing he was in the RAF at the time of the incident, should he not be getting some sort of disability payment relating to a work injury while on active duty or does British Dept. of V.A. not provide if injured. Maybe he sees his pot of gold? None the less he did lose a leg during service and should be awarded something.
Please don't scold me, only my opnion

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

None the less he did lose a leg during service and should be awarded something.

Reading on the rec.skydiving threads I posted....

He chose to have his leg amputated because the knee was so damaged they had to fuse it straight. He believed that having a prosthesis that would flex at the knee would be better than his real leg with a straight knee.

It was his decision to have it done. It was not a medical necessity...was not life threatening.

Speaking as a physical therapist who works with amputees all the time, I'd have to speak with Nigel and read his medical records to find out if he made the right decision.

Personally, I know quite a few awesome surgeons who possibly could have saved his leg -and- made it functional. Amputation is of LAST resort. An AKA (above knee amputation) is a very difficult malady to get around with. Just ask the members of POE. One prefers to have a fused shaft as a leg, rather than deal with an unstable knee situation that will flex sometimes without warning. The other has a "C-Leg" that is computerized and makes his life almost as normal as you and I. However, the "C-Leg" is extremely expensive and very few people have one.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[freethefly 6]

Well, now that changes everything. Seems his decision on the canopy, particular type of landing he was attempting, the place he set up for final and to have his leg chopped were all of his own doing. More informed now, I am.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

None the less he did lose a leg during service and should be awarded something.

He chose to have his leg amputated because the knee was so damaged they had to fuse it straight. He believed that having a prosthesis that would flex at the knee would be better than his real leg with a straight knee.

It was his decision to have it done. It was not a medical necessity...was not life threatening.

Thats' a pretty jaded view of events and his treatment choices.
Aside from the fact that doctors in the UK won't amputate for trivial reasons. It's just unbelievable someone would blame the guy saying he chose to lose his leg, it was a choice between several unattractive treatment options. The guy didn't walk in and ask for his leg to be lopped off.

Yep he's a muppet for hooking it into the standium roof and he's admitted he f*$#%d up. Even if it's a skydive dressed as santa into a stadium it was an official RAF jump, that resulted in a monopedal jumper. Even if it's his fault he was taking the risk through his active service.

Having said that he probably *does* get the appropriate compensation already. It is difficult to have any sympathy for the guy blaming someone else for his screw up and suing.

[slug 1]

I'll wait until the judge or jury hears all the facts about who did what when and where. Sometimes in the militarya persons options are limited due to the "chain of command".

Can someone tell us if the folks in England are getting as sue crazy as we are in the U.S..

R.I.P.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Seeing he was in the RAF at the time of the incident, should he not be getting some sort of disability payment relating to a work injury while on active duty or does British Dept. of V.A. not provide if injured. Maybe he sees his pot of gold? None the less he did lose a leg during service and should be awarded something.
Please don't scold me, only my opnion

I agree that this should be viewed as a work accident, not as a skydiving one. If a soldier screws up in battle and gets hurt or killed, we don't diminish him for it. Is he asking for 50,000 pounds on top of this, or did they hang him out to dry?

Even if he blew it, that happens in dangerous occupations. The entire function of organizations like OSHA is to reduce the incident rate.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

If a soldier screws up in battle and gets hurt or killed, we don't diminish him for it.

In battle there are indeed unknown risks that soldiers go in to, by order of their higher command. They don't question in, they trust and go. They, the soldiers, are not diminished by it.

In a demo, work related or not, military or not, there are known risks that PRO rated skydivers are trained how to judge beforehand and make decisions for themselves and their safety.

In war--go means GO! This is not the same thing.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

If a soldier screws up in battle and gets hurt or killed, we don't diminish him for it.

In battle there are indeed unknown risks that soldiers go in to, by order of their higher command. They don't question in, they trust and go. They, the soldiers, are not diminished by it.

In a demo, work related or not, military or not, there are known risks that PRO rated skydivers are trained how to judge beforehand and make decisions for themselves and their safety.

In war--go means GO! This is not the same thing.

ltdiver

Sorry but i don't think a "pro" rateing means anything In the military. Ever read the story about the king who wasn't wearing any cloth's
Sometimes for various reasons some one doesn't want to disapoint a person above them in their chain of command, and they might not understand the consequences of their decisions. (I'm not refering to the injured jumper.)

Just say no OK, two weeks later a "no" person can end up working with the coalition in the sand. Or some other shit job.

Lets wait and see what comes out in court.

R.I.P.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

In war--go means GO! This is not the same thing.

Having been in the military myself it is my opinion that the above statement is completely wrong.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If a soldier screws up in battle and gets hurt or killed, we don't diminish him for it.

In battle there are indeed unknown risks that soldiers go in to, by order of their higher command. They don't question in, they trust and go. They, the soldiers, are not diminished by it.

In a demo, work related or not, military or not, there are known risks that PRO rated skydivers are trained how to judge beforehand and make decisions for themselves and their safety.

It's not about unknown risks. It's the fact that people make errors in judgement and in a dangerous environment that leads to accidents. It's unfair to demand perfection out of the people you put in these situations. Same would apply in particular to pilots who perform at air shows. They're both doing the most glamorous, but most dangerous PR work for the military.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

It's the fact that people make errors in judgement and in a dangerous environment that leads to accidents.

I agree. He admits to making the mistake. I don't remember hearing about anyone else getting hurt on that demo.

So, tell us again why he's feeling right in sueing someone else for his own faulty actions?

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[mr2mk1g 10]

Well, it’s always almost impossible to make a liability call with such limited information as there is available here.

In this instance the RAF is acting as the jumper’s employer. During peacetime activities, the MOD owes the same duty of care as any ordinary civilian employer to its employees. Without going into employers duties in any detail it is enough to say that they are basically required to ensure their employees do not undertake any unreasonable risks.

If this jumper relied on the call of the Demo Leader on whether or not they were to jump and the Demo Leader was also an MOD employee then the MOD could be vicariously liable for that decision. If the court found that it was a bad decision to let the team jump – liability might then follow.

That is of course if the jumper can establish that the injury was as a direct result of that decision. For example, if the judge were to conclude that the accident happened because of poor canopy piloting or simply a bad choice of canopy then it would be the fault of the jumper and not the demo leader. From the rest of the thread these both seem like very real possibilities.

It’s also heavily reliant on the fact that this jumper was not himself the Demo Leader. Given his experience he may well have been; in which case establishing liability could well be an extremely high hurdle for him to overcome.

You should think of the jump discussed here as fundamentally different to ordinary parachute jumps. In most cases, no one is there to tell you to jump - you make that decision on your own. Even when it comes to demo jumps or tandem jumps most of the time each jumper is essentially an independent contractor and thus makes their own decision. Jump and you accept the liability for yourself.

Here this is not the case; this guy was an employee – he had to do what his employer told him to do. His employer was under a duty not to tell its employees to do anything that was too dangerous. Normally you simply can’t find anyone in the course of an ordinary skydive who owes you that duty of care.

The other very important distinction between this instance and ordinary skydiving is that the defence of volenti (that the injured party voluntarily accepted the risk of the injury) is not open to employers with regard to a breach of their statutory duties. This defence is normally a mainstay of skydiving litigation and can be a very powerful tool in defending claims such as this.

Here though as a matter of public policy, the defence is not available to the employer. Therefore this case does not share that element with ordinary skydiving – normally that defence could be raised and might easily be the death blow to any litigation.

These things always come down to the individual facts and we all know how papers rarely include many of those. Without such info, the above merely amounts to general theory on the subject. As such there is no way of really predicting what is going to happen in this case. Whatever happens, just remember that this case won’t actually mean a great deal to skydiving in general as there are a number of distinguishing factors.

[lawrocket 3]

The good counselor from across the pond made the point I was going to make. If this guy is an employee, he gets different treatment. Here in the states, we have a worker's compensation system set up for employees who are injured during the course and scope of their employment. The facts seem to indicate that this jumper was an employee.

This makes it a different story.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AdD 1]

He's suing the government, so who cares? I'd never sue a dropzone, but the government is fair game in my books.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

For example, if the judge were to conclude that the accident happened because of poor canopy piloting or simply a bad choice of canopy then it would be the fault of the jumper and not the demo leader.

Not necessarily. Did the employer provide adequate training in piloting skills? Did the employer provide enough and adequate training in canopy selection?

[freethefly 6]

Quote

He's suing the government, so who cares? I'd never sue a dropzone, but the government is fair game in my books.

Right on. The more I read, the more I believe that he has a right to sue, regardless to his actions during and after the jump. As this was a military related jump would he had had the choice to not jump? Was this an order to jump? I do see that his decision on setting up his landing had everything to do with this case. Jumping in 20 to 25 mph winds is common and I do not see why winds had anything to do with it. Had they been gusting above 25 mph might but if wind condition is known then one should set up for landing accordingly in an area clear of obstruction.That aside, being an OTJ accident he should recieve compensation.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young