Jump to content

Skydiver Wins Lawsuit Against Teammate

By adminon - Read 5155 times

CALGARY, June 26 (Reuters) - A Canadian skydiver who was knocked out by a teammate during a jump, then plunged nearly half a mile (more than half a kilometre) to earth, was awarded C$1.1 million ($748,000) in damages by a judge who ruled the teammate was negligent.

Gerry Dyck, an expert who had made about 1,800 jumps before the 1991 mid-air accident, sued Robert Laidlaw, charging the team member failed to take proper care to avoid the collision that caused him severe brain injuries and ended his career.

The case raised questions about how much risk one can expect in an inherently risky sport, and included expert testimony from a veteran Hollywood stuntman known for his work in several James Bond movies.

In his 19-page decision issued late last week, Alberta Judge Peter Power ruled Laidlaw violated well-established safety procedures by failing to keep a proper lookout for Dyck while manoeuvring his body in preparation for opening his parachute.

"The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff which was breached by the unchecked turn into the plaintiff's air space," the judge wrote. "This act, which was foreseeable, was negligent and resulted in substantial harm being inflicted on the plaintiff."

Dyck's injuries were severe enough to prevent the 43-year-old former surveyor from holding a job ever since.

"The judge found that this is not a sport about people falling from the sky like flies, it's a sport that's highly regulated, that's highly controlled in terms of procedures and prescribed practices," Dyck's lawyer Greg Rodin said on Monday.

During the trial in Calgary this spring, the judge heard the eight-person team jumped out of a plane at an altitude of 12,500 feet (3,800 metres) on May 5, 1991. The members went into formation to perform manoeuvres while free-falling above the farmland near Beiseker, Alberta, 47 miles (76 kilometres) northeast of Calgary.

The jumpers were to perform manoeuvres until they fell to 3,500 feet (1,067 metres), then "track off," or steer away, so they could open their parachutes.

As they opened their chutes, Laidlaw's elbow hit Dyck in the head, knocking him unconscious and causing the two men's parachutes to become tangled.

At about 2,200 feet (670 metres), Laidlaw managed to free himself and land using his reserve chute. But Dyck, out cold, remained entangled and plummeted to earth, sustaining severe brain injuries and broken bones in his right arm.

Laidlaw had testified that as he moved away from the centre of the formation, he lost sight of the other jumpers in his peripheral vision, indicating to him that he was sufficiently clear of his teammates.

Testifying on behalf of Laidlaw was B.J. Worth, an expert skydiver and stuntman, who co-ordinated and performed aerial stunts for numerous motion pictures, including such James Bond films as "Tomorrow Never Dies," "Goldeneye," and "License to Kill."

Worth's testimony did not convince the judge, however.

Dan Downe, Laidlaw's lawyer, said he was surprised by the ruling, and was reviewing it to determine whether there were grounds for appeal.

"We were quite confident that the trial evidence indicated that Laidlaw did not make any turn prior to collision, and he was the only eyewitness because Dyck was rendered unconscious," Downe said.

Rodin said Dyck was pleased with the result because it proved his right to compensation after nine years, and that he believed the skydiving community would "benefit from a decision that holds jumpers accountable for their conduct in the sky."

1 1
1 1

SIGN UP OR LOGIN

Create a free account or login to comment on this article.

Sign Up Login

User Feedback


ChrisD
So what's the moral of this story? Because from where I sit, I see that once again many have confused safety, and the fact that skydiving is dangerous,...PERIOD, with how our legal system works. Our legal system is about money, PERIOD. It is not about the morality, or best practices, or who is right or who is wrong, it is about winning. It is a flawed system, but it is the best we have at the moment. Something to consider when jumping. Because if your unfortunate enough to be involved in any lawsuit and you don't have the legal muscle, you are going to loose. Right-ness or wrong-ness don't enter into the picture, your "retainer" frequently determines , after the fact, who was at fault. The fact that the injured party willfully chose to participate is "prima face" evidence that they willfully chose to engage in a behavior where by the very nature they share responsibility for the outcome. This fact was ignored. Instead we, the public "Create" a villain, a bad guy, so that this lawsuit can proceed. It is very sad to see that this good guy V. Villain continues, this is a "social construction," see it for what it is. And I am disgusted with those that continue to perpetuate this way of thinking.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×