17 year old turns in at Start Skydiving!

[piisfish 135]

Quote

IF lawyering didn't pay so well, I wouldn't be doing it, believe me. Stick with Nuclear Engineering, Homer. Much less boring, I am sure.

Added name for more clarity

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

IF lawyering didn't pay so well, I wouldn't be doing it, believe me. Stick with Nuclear Engineering, Homer. Much less boring, I am sure.

Added name for more clarity

FUCK you nick, sector 7-g, that's where it's ON!!!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[anthonyfellows 0]

Quote

What you wish the law shopuld say is irrelevant. 17 year olds can not sign a valid waiver. And parents or legal guardians cannot bind a 17 year old. Simply stated, a waiver signed by parents or guardians for a 17 year old is worthless. whether you wish it were so or not. And, yes, I have graduated from law school and been engaged in the practice of law for 25 years.

I don't wish it was one way or another. I believe that it should be and makes more sense the way I have described. So basically any type of waiver whether it be for a high school wrestling team or skydiving isn't worth the paper that it is written on? Why are we wasting so much fucking paper? Oh yeah ... It's because we live in the USA and the old way is always the right way, no matter how out of date it may become.

At this point, I am going to go back and read every post in this thread, because I have much more of an interest now that I have realized the law as it is written in this aspect is just another bullshit loophole for another bullshit lawsuit to be won against a party who has done nothing wrong.

Serious relationships turn into work after a few weeks and I already got a fucking job :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.A.F. = Hard As Fuck ... Goddamn Amateurs

[nigel99 143]

Quote

Quote

It took 101 posts to get to the bottom line.
Good stuff.

I think the bottom line is its pretty pathetic and sad that people need to be divided into two camps about things like this as the US in indeed not the land of the free and stupid laws and fears stop people living a normal life.

I agree. The law should prevent parents who have signed a waiver exploiting the loop holes. The US litigious climate is very scary and must make operating a DZ a nightmare.

I did my first jump on my 16th birthday - the only reason my parents signed the waiver is that they didn't think I would jump!

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Skydivesg 6]

Hey Buster, question for ya.

Let's say someone who is 17 and looks older, (not that it's relevant) signs a waiver and fudges on the DOB so it says they are 18. Is the witness of the signature (DZ employee) obligated by law to confirm the age via an ID?

Or would that waiver stand up in court?

This is a question for the USA.

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

[jtiflyer 0]

Quote

Hey Buster, question for ya.

Let's say someone who is 17 and looks older, (not that it's relevant) signs a waiver and fudges on the DOB so it says they are 18. Is the witness of the signature (DZ employee) obligated by law to confirm the age via an ID?

Or would that waiver stand up in court?

This is a question for the USA.

Usually a dz staffer looks at the ID and signs as a witness. Not that most dz staffers are qualified to spot a fake ID

[fencebuster 7]

At my DZ, no ID, no jumpy. A good rule. Then, you don't have the issue of the negligence in not identifying the fake ID. The issue of a fake ID would be relevant in the follow-on lawsuit. The 17 year old would have procured the jump by fraud and would then complicate the facts substantially. I wouldn't want to predict how it would work out.

Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208
AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I
MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger
Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures

[chuckbrown 0]

I'm not sure that the fraud gets the DZ off the hook. Fraud in the inducement of a contract voids the contract, which means no waiver. You can bet if the kid got killed the parents are going to be suing for wrongful death & I doubt the kid's fraudulent acts will insulate the DZ from any claim from the parents.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

What you wish the law shopuld say is irrelevant. 17 year olds can not sign a valid waiver. And parents or legal guardians cannot bind a 17 year old. Simply stated, a waiver signed by parents or guardians for a 17 year old is worthless. whether you wish it were so or not. And, yes, I have graduated from law school and been engaged in the practice of law for 25 years.

I don't wish it was one way or another. I believe that it should be and makes more sense the way I have described.

Whether you "wish it was one way" or "believe that it should be" does not change the reality of how it actually works. There are rules and laws I disagree with but wishing or believing it should be different does not change the rule or law.

[anthonyfellows 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What you wish the law shopuld say is irrelevant. 17 year olds can not sign a valid waiver. And parents or legal guardians cannot bind a 17 year old. Simply stated, a waiver signed by parents or guardians for a 17 year old is worthless. whether you wish it were so or not. And, yes, I have graduated from law school and been engaged in the practice of law for 25 years.

I don't wish it was one way or another. I believe that it should be and makes more sense the way I have described.

Whether you "wish it was one way" or "believe that it should be" does not change the reality of how it actually works. There are rules and laws I disagree with but wishing or believing it should be different does not change the rule or law.

Well how ever you want to word it. It simply does not make sense the way it is.

Serious relationships turn into work after a few weeks and I already got a fucking job :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.A.F. = Hard As Fuck ... Goddamn Amateurs

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Well how ever you want to word it. It simply does not make sense the way it is.

Maybe it will make more sense with an explanation.

What we have is simply that if a person wants to waive his rights, it must be that very person waiving his (or her) own rights.

That isn't unreasonable, is it?

Since a person below the age of majority cannot sign a binding contract, he cannot waive his own rights, because the waiver is a contract.

So, why should it be this way?

Because it protects many different people from many different things.

Consider, if parents are allowed to sign a waiver for a child, what happens if one parent signs, while the other refuses?

Or, if some other adult shows up at the dropzone and signs the waiver for a minor, how would you know that that particular adult has the legal authority to sign that waiver in the first place? The waiver could not be binding if the person signing doesn't have the right to sign for the person whose rights are being waived.

Much easier and less conflict ridden to simply say that one can only waive one's own rights.

And then, as a side effect, we cannot let a person who cannot sign the waiver for himself jump.

[anthonyfellows 0]

Quote

Quote

Well how ever you want to word it. It simply does not make sense the way it is.

Maybe it will make more sense with an explanation.

What we have is simply that if a person wants to waive his rights, it must be that very person waiving his (or her) own rights.

That isn't unreasonable, is it?

Since a person below the age of majority cannot sign a binding contract, he cannot waive his own rights, because the waiver is a contract.

So, why should it be this way?

Because it protects many different people from many different things.

Consider, if parents are allowed to sign a waiver for a child, what happens if one parent signs, while the other refuses?

Or, if some other adult shows up at the dropzone and signs the waiver for a minor, how would you know that that particular adult has the legal authority to sign that waiver in the first place? The waiver could not be binding if the person signing doesn't have the right to sign for the person whose rights are being waived.

Much easier and less conflict ridden to simply say that one can only waive one's own rights.

And then, as a side effect, we cannot let a person who cannot sign the waiver for himself jump.

I agree with every word of what you just said. But that isn't the way it happens. Not only in skydiving, but other things that require you to sign some sort of waiver. Parents sign the same document for their children that they would sign for themselves if they were taking part in the activity or what ever it may be. Yet the document means nothing if the parent signs it for his/her child. So back to my point. Why does the process of having a parent sign a waiver for their child, for anything make any sense at all? Why are we wasting the paper, if the document means nothing?

Serious relationships turn into work after a few weeks and I already got a fucking job :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H.A.F. = Hard As Fuck ... Goddamn Amateurs

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Why does the process of having a parent sign a waiver for their child, for anything make any sense at all? Why are we wasting the paper, if the document means nothing?

A reasonable question.

The legal reason is because a waiver signed by the parents does help shield the vendor against the parents suing on their own behalf (not on the kid's [or kid's estate's] behalf) for whatever cause of action the laws of their particular state might say that next-of-kin could pursue (especially in the case of a fatality, e.g., a "wrongful death" lawsuit). And some protection is better than none.

Another reason is the possible psychological benefit: i.e., because it might deter some lawsuits that might not otherwise get deterred.

[riggerpaul 1]

(So, Andy, I would PM you with this one but you block them. What did you think of my post?)

[Andy9o8 0]

All good points, Paul; thanks.

Now, some people would counter that kids are allowed to do all sorts of other extreme sports, like snowboarding or motocross, etc. And that's true. There's no perfect comparison. The best I can say to these people is that - all nitpicking aside - even though one might have a fatal accident in those other activities, skydiving has a particularly enhanced risk of death compared just about anything else. Fall off your motorcycle at high speed, or crash your snowboard into a tree, and you might be killed, but you might not. Have a very serious high-speed double malfunction while skydiving, or go in with nothing out, and you've had it. And that's the reason why, in the US at least, DZOs need to be more careful about protecting themselves from liability than most other activity vendors.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

All good points, Paul; thanks.

Now, some people would counter that kids are allowed to do all sorts of other extreme sports, like snowboarding or motocross, etc. And that's true. There's no perfect comparison. The best I can say to these people is that - all nitpicking aside - even though one might have a fatal accident in those other activities, skydiving has a particularly enhanced risk of death compared just about anything else. Fall off your motorcycle at high speed, or crash your snowboard into a tree, and you might be killed, but you might not. Have a very serious high-speed double malfunction while skydiving, or go in with nothing out, and you've had it. And that's the reason why, in the US at least, DZOs need to be more careful about protecting themselves from liability than most other activity vendors.

As has been pointed out, a waiver can have a certain deterrent effect, legally binding or not, with some activities.

Skydiving is so far out there for so many people that the deterrent effect is minimal.

The only way, then, to protect ourselves is to adhere strictly to what has a chance of being held binding in a court.

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

Now, some people would counter that kids are allowed to do all sorts of other extreme sports, like snowboarding or motocross, etc. And that's true.

The difference, in these cases/comparisons is INSURANCE, and insurance/indemnity policy availability that protects the vendors/business activity proprietors of those other activities, that just does not exist/is not available, for skydiving. Waivers do not just necessarily "stand alone" and are not sacrosanct in their protection in other high-risk activities we otherwise routinely see minors actively participating in either. It is just that those activities, for at least purposes of their mainstream perception, are more "acceptable" - and therefore (more accurately) as a result, are more (economically/feasibly) INSURABLE.

FWIW.

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Now, some people would counter that kids are allowed to do all sorts of other extreme sports, like snowboarding or motocross, etc. And that's true.

The difference, in these cases/comparisons is INSURANCE, and insurance/indemnity policy availability that protects the vendors/business activity proprietors of those other activities, that just does not exist/is not available, for skydiving. Waivers do not just necessarily "stand alone" and are not sacrosanct in their protection in other high-risk activities we otherwise routinely see minors actively participating in either. It is just that those activities, for at least purposes of their mainstream perception, are more "acceptable" - and therefore (more accurately) as a result, are more (economically/feasibly) INSURABLE. FWIW.

Excellent point - agreed.