Liability as an Instructor - How to Minimize It?

[Skydivesg 7]

Has any of you lawyer types looked at Fred Morelli's waiver. He is the attorney for Skydive Chicago.
He told me that it has been tested a number of times in Illinois and has stood up in court.

He makes it available to anyone who requests it for no cost. He has emailed it to me each year for the past couple of years.

I've read it and it's quite impressive. I would love to have you guys look at it and give your opinions on it.

I am also still waiting for a response from 'allseeingeye' on my first post.

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[chuckakers 426]

The problem isn't liability insulation, it's litigation defense. One suit would likely wipe you out entirely, regardless of how much you try to pre-emptively protect yourself.

Thank a lawyer for that.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[Andy9o8 2]

  Quote

The problem isn't liability insulation, it's litigation defense. One suit would likely wipe you out entirely, regardless of how much you try to pre-emptively protect yourself.

Thank a lawyer for that.

From Post #30:

  Quote

Edit to add:
One more thing. As you know, lawyer-bashing is quite the sport. This forum is no definitely no exception. Personally, as a matter of policy I've decided to almost never rise to the bait, both in life and on this forum. But that's just me.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

[chuckakers 426]

  Quote

  Quote

The problem isn't liability insulation, it's litigation defense. One suit would likely wipe you out entirely, regardless of how much you try to pre-emptively protect yourself.

Thank a lawyer for that.

From Post #30:

  Quote

Edit to add:
One more thing. As you know, lawyer-bashing is quite the sport. This forum is no definitely no exception. Personally, as a matter of policy I've decided to almost never rise to the bait, both in life and on this forum. But that's just me.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

You're welcome. Lawyers...geez.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[diablopilot 2]

  Quote

Recently I have heard people, that I used to think were quite intelligent, totally ignore the concept that insurance and the insurance company’s business decisions are in the driver’s seat.

Even genius can be naive.

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

[BClear 0]

There is no one who sees the misgivings and failures of the legal system more than lawyers. We don't make laws, we don't have much control over what idiot sits on the bench and our clients lie to us more than 3/4 of the time. And remember most lawyers are one frivilous suit away from wiping out themselves entirely. I'm not sure where the idea that most attorneys bring frivilous suits come from, but I do know the concept only seems to lead to more people who need relief who I simply can't afford to risk giving it to.

[popsjumper 2]

  Quote

I'm not sure where the idea that most attorneys bring frivilous suits come from, ...

For starters...
- lawsuits covering for the plaintiffs own stupidity.
- convincing people to bring suit when they had no intention of doing so originally.
- twisting truth to fit one's claim.

Yes, I know...truth has no place in the courtroom. The power of persuasion prevails. Unfortunately, the reality is that money most often dictates how much persuasion can be exploited.

IMO, justice is blind by choice...because she doesn't want to see WTF is going on in the courtroom.

Yes, lawyer-bashing is quite the sport...and in many cases, rightfully so...so many cases in fact that general lawyer-bashing got started in the first place.


Now, to the original question...
IMHO, one cannot protect oneself entirely. You will always be exposed to the potential for being sued, rightfully or wrongly. What sucks is that you will have to spend your own money defending yourself and if you win, you're still stuck with the bill.

I don't know, I'm asking...what about the loser paying all the legal bills? Wouldn't that cut down on the volumes of frivilous suits being put up and put more of the load on the guilty when they lose? I know it sometimes happens that way when the plaintiff wins but as far as I know, rarely when the plaintiff loses.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[ghost47 18]

  Quote

I don't know, I'm asking...what about the loser paying all the legal bills? Wouldn't that cut down on the volumes of frivilous suits being put up and put more of the load on the guilty when they lose? I know it sometimes happens that way when the plaintiff wins but as far as I know, rarely when the plaintiff loses.

A loser pays system would cut down on frivolous suits. They do this in England and in other places as well.

However, the reason the Americans have decided against it is one of the reasons you note above: "Unfortunately, the reality is that money most often dictates how much persuasion can be exploited."

So say you've got a legitimate claim against IBM. IBM has expensive, $500 to $1000 an hour, lawyers. They're going to be very good, and rack up a ton of bills. Now you need to think about, what if my lawyer isn't that good? What if he loses? Not only do I get nothing, I'm going to owe IBM $500,000. Do I want to risk that?

However, say you have a stupid claim against IBM. You're far less likely to bring it if you know there's a good chance you'll end up owing IBM $500,000.

So the question is whether it's more important to deter the stupid lawsuits at the expense of also possibly deterring legitimate lawsuits, or whether it's more important to encourage legitimate lawsuits at the expense of enduring stupid lawsuits. The American system has decided the latter is more important than the former, which I think is reasonable. But the other way is not without merit, either.

[popsjumper 2]

Thanks. All too obvious once it was spelled out for me.
Kinda makes sense in an odd sort of way.

The pity is that you have to gamble on the "spin" capabilities of the lawyer...how well can he "spin" your side of the truth vs the other lawyer's ability.


Oh hell, there I go again...working truth into the equation. Sorry.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

There is no way to eliminate the liability. The only way to minimize it is to go strictly "by the book". What book, you say?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[marks2065 0]

how about if the lawyer files the suite and looses he gets nothing. how many of us had to pay a lawyer and lost the case. if he wasn't sure he could win he wouldn't take the case. this would cut down on lawyers taking soso cases or ones that are deffinately no good to start with.

[ghost47 18]

  Quote

how about if the lawyer files the suite and looses he gets nothing. how many of us had to pay a lawyer and lost the case. if he wasn't sure he could win he wouldn't take the case. this would cut down on lawyers taking soso cases or ones that are deffinately no good to start with.

Many plaintiff's lawyers do indeed work that way -- there may be some negotiation regarding if the plaintiff is responsible for costs (as opposed to lawyer fees) such as the filing fee, fees for photocopying, etc., but many plaintiff's lawyers work on what's called a contingency basis: you win, I get 40% of what you win. You lose, I get nothing.

The contingency fee is what allows a lot of poor people to bring legitimate suits because they would have no way of paying $100 an hour to a lawyer (and that's the cheapest I've ever seen a lawyer charge). And it does deter some bad suits for the reasons you stated.

If your suggestion is to make the contingency fee mandatory, I'd say that this might cut down on rich people bringing frivolous claims (because they're the only ones who can afford to pay a lawyer hourly), but I'm not sure, statistically, there are that many of those types of cases out there.

But I think the main problem is that there are simply too many lawyers out there. Many people go to not-so-good lawyer schools and come out of school $150,000 in debt and no good job prospects. (Many of them don't realize this before entering law school, or think that their situation will be different. The schools, who want their tuition, sure as hell don't tell them this.) So there you are, in massive debt, no experience, no job. Student loans are coming due, and you need to pay rent and buy food. Somebody comes along with a case, a not very good one. What do you do? If you say no, you resume your career of sitting. If you say yes, well, you get some experience, and maybe you force the other side to pay you to go away (e.g. it's cheaper for IBM to pay $10,000 to settle a stupid case than to go to trial). Out of the settlement you get 40% and the ability to continue forward for another month.

I'm not saying this is right. But it's what happens.

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

  Quote

There is no way to eliminate the liability. The only way to minimize it is to go strictly "by the book". What book, you say?

In my opinion, as a guy who has had a rating for over 26 years, that is EXACTLY what you need to do. Follow the most current USPA (or your country's) doctrine, and do the right thing. Do NOT pencil whip, ever, and do the best job you can as an instructor. If your partners are fucked up then TELL them they are fucked up. Do not cowtow to the people that are still out there doing seven level AFF and telling their "graduates" that they are "done" and just need to finish out their A-card (always Two Page) on their own time. You are only doing them a GREAT disservice and fucking them over in the end. How about telling them UP FRONT that it takes a full 25 jumps to get off of student status and then giving them the proper sequence to fulfill that obiligation? Seriously!

Chuck Blue, D-12501
AFF/TM/SL-I, PRO, S&TA, BMCI-4
Performance Skydiving/Z-Flock Wingsuit School
"

[riddler 0]

Something that I haven't seen mentioned here. Don't use alcohol or drugs anytime you are close to jumping. i.e. If you are a weekend instructor, drink on Monday And if you smoke, do it on the off-season.

Toxicology tests are becoming more standard on autopsies these days. I'm not a lawyer, but if I was, and I had a PI suit, I would immediately get a judge to order drug/alcohol test on the instructor. Considering that the metabolites of THC in Marijuana can stay in your body for over 30 days, if you use at all, you're going to test positive.

An etg urine test can detect if you've had alcohol even 80 hours before. If the lawyers move really fast, they can get you for that, too.

I don't drink or use drugs at all, for different reasons. But if there is ever an issue with my teaching, I know I'll pass any urine test.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[livendive 8]

I doubt I'll care if anyone tests my corpse for drugs/alcohol.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[riddler 0]

  Quote

I doubt I'll care if anyone tests my corpse for drugs/alcohol.

Your DZO may feel differently But I was talking about live testing.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[livendive 8]

  Quote

  Quote

I doubt I'll care if anyone tests my corpse for drugs/alcohol.

Your DZO may feel differently But I was talking about live testing.

Gotcha...I thought you were talking about autopsies. I wonder how tough it is to get an order to "search" (tox screen) an instructor. I'd think there would have to be some sort of evidence other than simply "a student was injured or killed while skydiving."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[psychoswooper 2]

  Quote

Something that I haven't seen mentioned here. Don't use alcohol or drugs anytime you are close to jumping. i.e. If you are a weekend instructor, drink on Monday And if you smoke, do it on the off-season.

Toxicology tests are becoming more standard on autopsies these days. I'm not a lawyer, but if I was, and I had a PI suit, I would immediately get a judge to order drug/alcohol test on the instructor. Considering that the metabolites of THC in Marijuana can stay in your body for over 30 days, if you use at all, you're going to test positive.

An etg urine test can detect if you've had alcohol even 80 hours before. If the lawyers move really fast, they can get you for that, too.

I don't drink or use drugs at all, for different reasons. But if there is ever an issue with my teaching, I know I'll pass any urine test.

I think this means that you need to be so upset over what just happened that you begin to drink heavily and/or do other things immediately after an incident. Not an original thought. Got the idea from a joke about a priest and an auto accident and a bottle of wine...