mr2mk1g

Thats how it works in England (at least partly)... and guess what... we don't have anywhere near the number of stupid fucks suing cos they stubbed their toe. We have made sure it doesnt interfer with peoples access to justice too. In fact a huge law firm started trying that sort of claim and went under last year taking half the personal injury industry down with it. They found the courts were always punishing them with massive costs pay outs to the other side.

its ok - we're describing the same test. When there is a question of reasonability in relation to a technical point the "reasonable man" is deamed to be a "reasonable person with that technical knowledge". Therefore when I say "joe schmo" I mean "joe schmo engeneer" or whatever the question is in relation to. If you make something that meets all the design requirements then you probably are doing everything that can reasonably be expected of you. But tails dont just fall off.

most of SkydiveUWE and half of Skydive Bristol

yes - definately sort of - so long what you did to make it safe was considered enough by joe schmo on the street - not just you. Whether or not you have done enough is an objective test not subjective. So it doesnt matter if you think its enough, it matters if everyone else thinks its enough.

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.

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)

Mat (with arround 20 buddies)

I call repeat

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.

Yes you do - it was in the initial post

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?

I guess to quickly adress "would you sue"... that depends on just how badly I was messed up... both pysically and mentally. If I was seriously out of pocket and it was some one elses fault - yeah I'd sue. If I was badly injured and it was some one elses fault - yeah I'd sue. Less than that, or maybe a manufacturer who I felt was less "morally culpable" no. I advise my friends and family to stay clear of the law. Participants rarely feal they have got a good deal on either side of things. My sisters car was hit by an idiot cypriot driver pulling of an really stupid manouvre while she was over there on holiday this summer. Typical whiplash you see in movies. Told her not to sue - would probably have been in for £500 - £1000, more if she'd hammed it up like I see most people doing. To me the hassle simply equates to more arse ache than £1000 is worth - and this is my job. I can only imagine how much arse ache it would be to someone who doesnt know shit and is worried about starting something that could see them being cross-examined in court by a Barrister. Now increase the payout... or increase how "wronged" I feel.... I may start to re-evaluate the situation. In the situation you describe... I'd probably say yes -I'd sue. I just fell out the back of a fucking plane when the tail came off! I'd be bust up and pissed they didn't spot the problem... but that view may change as you tweak the more specific facts a little.

Ok - A lawyer joins the thread. (caviat - I practice in England). Also I will not answer "to sue or not to sue" only "is it possible to sue" Whether or not someone tries tp sue is up to them and down to a personal choice type thingy. It does not matter one jot if the manufacturer knew of the defect or not. If they built it, and it fell apart because of the way they built it, they can be liable. A defect they did not know about is referred to as a “latent defect” and manufacturers can be caught by them just as easily as any other. That is all you have to prove to establish primary liability. 1. They built the plane (probably not in dispute) 2. The plane fell apart due to the defect (if you have the NTSB on your side this may not be a problem but it depends on all the facts etc etc.). This is a classic Donoghue v Stevens situation. Those of you who have studied any form of law in whatever vocation you have will have seen this case, its English - but half of America's legal system is built on this one case! A woman buys a bottle of ginger beer and there’s a snail in it. She freaks and sues the manufacturer. She doesn’t have to show the manufacturer knew there was a snail. They are liable because the didn’t take reasonable steps to ensure no one suffered as a result of the snail being there. A reasonable step in that instance may be having someone check the bottles to see that they are clear. In the case of building a plane what is a reasonable step to ensure no one suffers is a lot greater. There is a lot more harm that can come of a mistake so it is reasonable to require manufacturers to be a lot more careful. The third thing you must therefore prove is that they did not take reasonable steps to prevent the accident. To be blunt I can’t be arsed to go research what may be legally expected of a manufacturer this sort of situation but I can bet that it wouldn’t be too hard to show that they could have done more. If the NTSB can say conclusively that the crash was because of X – they really could have picked it up… probably… but then if we all knew what was going to be the legal outcome of any given situation I would be out of a job. The reason actual knowledge of defects becomes important in law is because you can get more money. It’s a concept called punitive damages. They are there to punish manufacturers who allow a dangerous situation to exist because its cheaper. Punitive damages are awarded to make sure its not cheaper to produce a dangerous product. If it can be shown that the manufacturer knew of the defect and ignored it – they are looking down the barrel of a huge pay out to the claimant. What are they liable for outside of punitive damages? Anything and everything that stems form the incident. Financially they must put you into the situation that you would have been in had the accident not happened. So they must pay for a new plane, new pants that were cut by the medic (eg) lost earnings you could have made were you not in the hospital etc. They are also liable for pain and suffering so must pay you a figure for that. In England we have a nice set of books and cases which tells us how much an injury is worth so I can instantly (literally at the press of a button – its quite macabre really) value any given injury. As far as I understand American law the jury decides this element (or at least has a hand in it) so god knows how much of a pay out may come here. In any case it depends on how bad the injuries are and how long recovery is going to take. Now I really ought to get back to non-hypothetical situations.

[Rumsfeld] "...and then we droped this great big bomb on them and it went 'bbbbrrraaaanggg'..." [Rumsfeld]

That makes sense - I noticed the other day that if I pan rapidly with a wide angle lense fitted, I see a sliver of the vignette for a seccond or so. I guess this must be the image stabalisation do-hickery kicking in.

Thats kinda the point - "to brag" is a synonym of "to boast" which is: "To speak of with excessive pride" I guess the keyword is "excessive" ie if you can do it, it can't really be bragging... unless you talk about it to excess, in which case it is. Perhaps peoples impression of a braggart (by the dictionary definition) is less uniform than I had imagined. Fair enough, I thought most would agree with my impression, (which is less than favourable), but then perceptions are subjective so who am I to argue with those of another. Just so long as braggarts recognise how a significant proportion of the population is going to percieve them.

OK - a detailed photostudy of a Wings pud, by popular request.

Can we maybe agree that having someone try to give you advice that is outside their scope of experience is annoying? Be that because they only have 50 jumps of that type (either as they are a newbie or because they have only done RW and tandem instead of FF(eg)) or because of any other of a multitude of reasons such as commenting technically on something outside of their vocation. If we widen out the issue like that, is that a principal that people would agree with? Here perhaps what Wrongway has done is to apply that principal to a specific person in a specific instance. Is it that specific instance itself that people don’t agree with?

Ask em to do it and dont mention copyright. If they do - great, who the f*&k cares about copyright. No one's gonna turn up with a summons against you. (and that is my official legal stand point on this one). If not, I'd give it up on cost effectivness grounds, unless you have money to burn.

HEY... No personal attacks in the forums.

Perhaps then everyone has the right to look like an arse for their bragging. Bragging is not cool, regardless of why you feel you should be able to.

No one has the right to brag.

I hope I get to meet you one day. Hopefully looking HERE will remind you of a little smile the posters on Dropzone.com gave you once.

Your parachute system has developed an error. Please select. ___________________________________________________ END PROCESS _______________ WAIT AND SEE IF IT CLEARS

Perhaps time for a devoted thread to it. I've had diametrically opposed answers. Some say it increases the wide angle effect, some say it decreases it. I end up --->