cypres manufacturers sued

[antonija 0]

Quote

Quote

...if a product is defective, either in design or manufacture, then the manufacturer/distributor/retailer/etc can all be sued.

This whole lawsuit will probably become very technically complicated. If the download of the CYPRESS data shows that it DID activate at the proper altitude, then the focus of the delayed opening moves to the container, deployment system, reserve canopy, etc. The suit could end up involving several other equipment manufacturers and dealers.

Kevin K.

Don't they all have the "..is a dangerous sport that may result in... does not accept any risk..." written on each and every thing and in each and every manual? Even by US "don't microwave your cat" standards this should be bulletproof as far as lawsuits go (that is if they didn't sell a device with design flaw etc.).

I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

[Hvance 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

...if a product is defective, either in design or manufacture, then the manufacturer/distributor/retailer/etc can all be sued.

This whole lawsuit will probably become very technically complicated. If the download of the CYPRESS data shows that it DID activate at the proper altitude, then the focus of the delayed opening moves to the container, deployment system, reserve canopy, etc. The suit could end up involving several other equipment manufacturers and dealers.

Kevin K.

Don't they all have the "..is a dangerous sport that may result in... does not accept any risk..." written on each and every thing and in each and every manual? Even by US "don't microwave your cat" standards this should be bulletproof as far as lawsuits go (that is if they didn't sell a device with design flaw etc.).

Maybe so. But the suit alleges that there IS a design flaw at the very least.

I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

As to who is named, I don't know. But the waivers we all sign include negligence and gross negligence. I don't know how the case law applies, but it will at the very least make suing the DZ, for example, more difficult.
.

I'm not an attorney and am more than open to correction here. I have been involved in a number of high risk sports and have been on the other end of the risk management table as well (in skydiving the DZ, manufacturer side, but this was not connected to skydiving). My understand of the case law is that most courts will not enforce a waiver for gross negligence.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Hvance 0]

Quote

Quote

As to who is named, I don't know. But the waivers we all sign include negligence and gross negligence. I don't know how the case law applies, but it will at the very least make suing the DZ, for example, more difficult.
.

I'm not an attorney and am more than open to correction here. I have been involved in a number of high risk sports and have been on the other end of the risk management table as well (in skydiving the DZ, manufacturer side, but this was not connected to skydiving). My understand of the case law is that most courts will not enforce a waiver for gross negligence.

They may well not. My point was only that the waiver does include gross negligence in the body. Like I said, I have no idea what the precedent(s) in this situation is. Such clauses may indeed be void. Either way, what I was getting at was that winning a suit against the DZ, for example, can be much more difficult than in a suit against Airtec.

I wish Google Maps had an "Avoid Ghetto" routing option.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

>(T)he Expert Cypres 2 promises that it will act independently of any act by
> the skydiver to cut the cord of the reserve container closing loop (which is
>all that is required to deploy the reserve chute) at a height approximately
>750 feet above ground as long as the sky diver is falling at a rate of
>descent greater than 78 mph,

From the manual:

"The Cypres . . . should open a reserve canopy at an appropriate altitude whenever necessary.

However, the occurrence of a malfunction cannot be excluded. We accept no responsibility for damages and consequences resulting from a malfunction."

Someone over there needs to re-think the verbage here. To the uninitiated it says 'works every time'.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,400]

>Someone over there needs to re-think the verbage here. To the
>uninitiated it says 'works every time'.

Hmm. I would think that if they meant that they would have written "The Cypres WILL open a reserve canopy at an appropriate altitude whenever necessary." To me, "should" indicates that it is probable but not certain that it will open the reserve at the appropriate altitude.

But I have no idea what that translates to in a legal sense.

[airdvr 197]

Quote

>Someone over there needs to re-think the verbage here. To the
>uninitiated it says 'works every time'.

Hmm. I would think that if they meant that they would have written "The Cypres WILL open a reserve canopy at an appropriate altitude whenever necessary." To me, "should" indicates that it is probable but not certain that it will open the reserve at the appropriate altitude.

But I have no idea what that translates to in a legal sense.

I get what you're saying. I wonder how what gets written in Germany gets translated into english.

'should open'? Isn't that the reason we stopped referring to them as AOD's?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Hellis 0]

Should cut the reserve loop
Would be more correct

[catfishhunter 1]

Quote

>Someone over there needs to re-think the verbage here. To the
>uninitiated it says 'works every time'.

Hmm. I would think that if they meant that they would have written "The Cypres WILL open a reserve canopy at an appropriate altitude whenever necessary." To me, "should" indicates that it is probable but not certain that it will open the reserve at the appropriate altitude.

But I have no idea what that translates to in a legal sense.

In Legal terms SHOULD means just that. Such as you should brush your teeth.

Now if it said SHALL such as your mother telling you SHALL brush your teeth then it would be a different story.

Should and shall are legal terms and it is why they used the term should because while it is expected it is not required.

P.S. I tried to email the scum sucking bastard but this is what came back

[email protected]
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT TO::
host eastonlawfirm.com [75.125.189.210]: 550 Mailbox quota exceeded

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

But I have no idea what that translates to in a legal sense.

I can't even see how this could make it to trial. The woman had sifficient skydiving experience to understand the risks, and the mechanics of making a skydive, which include opening a parachute.

The hard truth is that she went in with both of her handles in place. He death was not the result of any action on the part of the Cypres, it was due to inaction on her part.

Again, I would hope that anyone close to the family of the victim would counsel them that this lawsuit is based on a false premise, and not to proceed unless the attorney is willing to work pro-bono. Any other circumstance is only inviting the attorney to make a pile of money while persuing this case. In the end the family will be without their daughter and out a significant sum of money.

[airdvr 197]

You don't know what she told her family about her AAD. I'll bet she wasn't totally upfront about the risks. And, I'll bet the atty is working on a contingency and might not know any better. I think lawrocket said he was doing medical mal. Those guys work contingency all the time.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[NickDG 23]

Some might recall when for many years these devices were known as AOD(s) for Automatic Opening Device before being changed to AAD for (Automatic Activation Device) just to prevent this type of lawsuit.

But this was bound to happen sooner or later . . .

In hindsight Helmut's manual (and advertising) should never mention a reserve canopy. The gizmo is a loop cutter and nothing more.

On the other hand I hope it becomes clear to Mom that the company she's trying to wipe out is responsible for saving who knows how many hundreds of lives.

NickD

[mpohl 1]

Don't worry.
Judgments by US courts are not enforceable in Germany (or Europe, for that matter). At most, it will put SSK out-of-business and make the Cypres unavailable to US customers.

Which would once again make a point for the power of Darwinian selection...this time on a nation-scale.

Quote

Quote

My biggest concern is that a frivolous lawsuit will put someone, who's only desire is to keep people in our sport safe, out of business.

Correct. And if Cypres is taken off the market because of lawsuits, then many more skydivers will die, by not having them.

Another question: What skydivers are going to step forward and testify against Cypres?

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi mpohl,

Quote

Judgments by US courts are not enforceable in Germany

This is a question, not an argument: So why do you know this?

There are international trade agreements between Germany and the USA. I doubt that any of us know what those agreements say.

We do extradite from many countries.

JerryBaumchen

[skypuppy 1]

Expert witnesses are all likely to be users of an AAD.

Where would you get an idea like that? There are still a few of us neanderthals around....

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[dks13827 3]

I recall reading that accident report.... it seems that Brooke may have set the Cypress at home before going to the DZ.
Or maybe she can sue the maker of the soft, velcroed reserve handle !!!

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

Does anyone know if the DZ, gear mfgr, pilot, etc

I've heard it called a "blanket lawsuit". Sue everyone even remotely involved, hope for a settlement.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Some might recall when for many years these devices were known as AOD(s) for Automatic Opening Device before being changed to AAD for (Automatic Activation Device) just to prevent this type of lawsuit.

But this was bound to happen sooner or later . . .

In hindsight Helmut's manual (and advertising) should never mention a reserve canopy. The gizmo is a loop cutter and nothing more.

On the other hand I hope it becomes clear to Mom that the company she's trying to wipe out is responsible for saving who knows how many hundreds of lives.

NickD

direct link to download cypres safes list

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

[riggerrob 558]

"

Quote

...

Another question: What skydivers are going to step forward and testify against Cypres?

"

...................................................................

Not me!

I have inspected parachutes - involved in accidents - twice in the past and both times I found "no major flaws with the equipment."

Rob Warner
FAA Master Rigger

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi John,

Quote

What skydivers are going to step forward and testify against Cypres?

Based only upon what I have read here ( and that is very limited info ), I doubt that they will look for skydivers for expert witnesses. I think they will be looking for electronic geeks.

Back in the late '70's the Ford Pinto had a number of fatalities due to the location of the gas tank. During the course of the lawsuit(s) it was discovered that Ford had made an economical decision to save some money and locate the tank behind the rear axle thus saving some production costs.

It would seem, to me, that they will try to say that AirTec could have installed redundant electronics for very little increase in costs; ergo, AirTec is liable; their design, their decision.

Just my $0.02 so take it for what you paid for it,

JerryBaumchen

[shropshire 0]

One shouldn't hate on the Mom (she lost a loved one)... but the scum bag, ambulance chasing Lawyers, on the other hand.. fuck em... fuck em all to hell.

Caveat : That's not ALL lawyers

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mpohl 1]

Quote

Hi mpohl,

Quote

Judgments by US courts are not enforceable in Germany

This is a question, not an argument: So why do you know this?

There are international trade agreements between Germany and the USA. I doubt that any of us know what those agreements say.

We do extradite from many countries.

JerryBaumchen

March 2009

Will Your U.S. Judgment Be Enforced Abroad?

by Nadja Vietz

My law firm is frequently contacted by U.S. lawyers with judgments they are seeking to enforce overseas. The lawyer is seeking our assistance to enforce its U.S. court judgment against a foreign company that did business with the lawyer's U.S.-based client. The procedural history is nearly always the same. The litigator served the defendant and, several months and many dollars later, he or she now has a U.S. judgment. When the foreign company refuses to pay even pennies on the dollar on the judgment, the litigator realizes the judgment will need to be taken overseas for enforcement. Only then (and usually not until we relay this information) does the litigator realize very few countries will enforce U.S. judgments. To have a chance at collection, the case often must be tried anew, only this time in a far less sympathetic forum.

These nightmares are far too common, and their genesis is usually a contract that either calls for U.S. litigation or is completely silent on jurisdiction. The wise business lawyer has an arbitration provision, but unfortunately many contracts fail to contain this key element. I set forth below some suggestions for avoiding this nightmare, emphasizing European and, particularly, German legislation.[1]

Recognition of U.S. Judgments Under Foreign Local Law

The United States is not a party to any bilateral treaties or multilateral international conventions governing reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The reasons for the absence of such agreements seem to be that foreign countries perceive U.S. courts (particularly U.S. juries) as granting excessive awards (particularly in tort cases and particularly with respect to punitive damage awards) and as too often asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction and disregarding international law. Absent a treaty, the question of whether the courts of a foreign country will enforce a U.S. judgment is governed by the local rules of the foreign country and by international comity.[2]

Generally, U.S. judgments cannot be enforced in a foreign country without first being recognized by a court in that foreign country. The recognition and enforcement of U.S. judgments depend not only on the domestic law of the foreign country, but also on the principles of comity, reciprocity, and res judicata.3 Foreign courts generally do not recognize U.S. money judgments unless: (1) the U.S. court had jurisdiction; (2) the defendant was properly served; (3) the proceedings were not vitiated by fraud; and (4) the judgment is not contrary to the public policy of the foreign country.[4] Most European countries have similar code provisions, setting forth something along the lines of these four rules, but enforceability of U.S. judgments still varies widely from country to country, even within Europe. Some countries tend to enforce U.S. judgments, and some countries virtually never do. It can generally be said that non-default judgments not involving tort claims or punitive damages are more likely to be enforced.

Enforcement problems in Europe usually arise when the U.S. court lacked jurisdiction, when the defendant was not properly served, or when there are public-policy concerns.

U.S. Court Jurisdiction

European courts will not recognize U.S. judgments if the U.S. court lacked jurisdiction. Special attention needs to be paid to the fact that for purposes of recognizing foreign judgments, jurisdiction must be determined by the law of the European country, not by U.S. law. For instance, under the so-called "mirror-image principle," German law projects its own jurisdictional rules on the foreign court, which is then treated as having international jurisdiction if a German court would have had jurisdiction had the situation been reversed.[5]

Under the Hague Choice of Court Convention, concluded in June 2005, signatories would recognize and enforce the judgments of other signatory countries when those judgments follow valid "choice of court agreements."[6] This convention would enforce choice of court provisions and resulting judgments, much as the New York Convention does with arbitration clauses and subsequent arbitral awards.[7] The Convention, however, will not go into effect until at least two countries have ratified it. Thus far, only Mexico has done so.[8]

Proper Service

European courts also frequently deny enforcement of U.S. judgments because of improper service of process. The defendant cannot assert this defense in the European court if it in any way engaged in the U.S. lawsuit. Consequently, this issue usually arises when trying to enforce a default judgment. Proper service usually requires service to have been in accordance with the laws of the European country, and, in most instances, pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965, as well.[9]

Article 2 of the Hague Convention calls on each country to designate a central authority to receive service requests from other countries. Article 5 provides that the central authority shall itself render service or have the document served by an appropriate agency pursuant to the country's own service of process laws or by a particular method requested by the applicant.[10]

It is essential to serve the right person with authority to accept such service, but it is equally important to provide the defendant with a translation of the complaint and summons.[11] Failing to translate the court documents would, in most Hague Convention signatory countries, preclude a finding of proper service, even where a defendant had ample notice of the lawsuit.[12] We see this requirement neglected at least as often as it is followed.

Public Policy

European countries will not recognize foreign judgments where doing so cannot be reconciled with their own laws. Enforceability will be denied if major principles, such as the violation of fundamental rights or fundamental principles of local civil procedure or the like, were disregarded by the foreign court that granted the judgment.

Since punitive and treble damage awards are generally regarded as excessive and contrary to the public policy of most European countries, these almost always should be removed from the U.S. judgment before taking it to Europe for recognition and enforcement. Our experience is that the U.S. federal courts are quite willing to give a new judgment with these damages removed, so as to make their judgment more likely to be enforced overseas.

Conclusion

Getting U.S. judgments recognized and enforced in European courts is possible, but only if the U.S. litigation is handled from its inception with an eye towards European enforceability. Before filing suit here in the United States, it is critical to know the requirements for judgment recognition in the particular European country in which the judgment will eventually need to be recognized and enforced.

Nadja Vietz is a licensed attorney in Germany, Spain, and Washington, and a partner at Harris & Moure, pllc, where she focuses on international commercial litigation and arbitration and on assisting European and Latin-American companies here in the United States. For more information, see www.harrismoure.com or www.chinalawblog.com. Ms. Vietz can be contacted at 206-224-5657 or [email protected].

NOTES

1. The author is also licensed in Germany and in Spain, and has practiced in both countries for several years.

2. In Germany, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by special provisions of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung or ZPO). ZPO Section 328 deals with recognition in general, while sections 722 and 723 regulate the procedure for enforcing foreign judgments.

3. Some countries, such as China and Russia, generally do not enforce U.S. judgments under any circumstances.

4. German codes also require (1) that the judgment be res judicata; (2) that no conflicting judgment exists; (3) that no prior proceeding have been instituted; and (4) that reciprocity exists. (ZPO Section 318).

5. Similar rules exist in the laws of Switzerland and other European countries.

6. The full text of this Convention is available on the Hague Conference's website at www.hcch.nl.

7. 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

8. Mexico ratified on September 26, 2007. The European Union is starting to look at ratification process. Ratification in the U.S. might take years until implementation issues — including how to make state laws compatible with the convention — are resolved.

9. A list of all signatory countries with objections and reservations can be found at www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=17.

10. Some signatories signed the Hague Convention with reservations or objections. For instance, Germany expressly reserved its right to preclude service of process by mail, and only accepts service made through its central authority or by personal service, if agreed to by the defendant. However, there has been recent German case law holding that a defendant's actual notice in sufficient time to defend can remedy improper service, as long as service was proper under U.S. law.

11. See Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Hague Convention.

12. Germany expressly reserved the right to require all papers served on its citizens be translated into German, and the German Supreme Court recently confirmed that proper service must include such a translation.

[RiggerLee 61]

It wouldn't be hard to make an argument like that. It's easy to show the effects of the burble on the sencer. Furthermore with other companies like FXC setting a presedent for locating the sencer out side the burble on the front of the jumper it wouldn't be hard to make Cypres look bad to a wofo judge. They try to apply a soft wear fix to the problem of haveing there sencer buried in the container and for the most part they do ok. I've lissened to all their speals. The problem is that I have a bit of an engeneering background and I can see through some of their bull shit that most skydivers fall for. I have on several ocations cought them just flat out lieing to me. I just blew it off at the time but if they tryed that shit in court with a good tecnical witness he'd tear them a new ass hole.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com

[shropshire 0]

[sensor on the front] .... provided that the 'Client' is falling belly to Earth ... can't guarantee that during an 'incident'

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[RiggerLee 61]

Well it's actually on one side of the main lift web. I don't have numbers on it but I'd be interested to see how badly it would be compermised by the burble when you're on your back. If I wanted to make a point of it I'd mount it low on the lift web of an older rig with short latterals so it's mostly on the side. It would be easy to record data for both and I'd bet the diffrence would be strikeing enough to make a damning argument against cypres. Remember we're not talking about reallity we're talking about something that could be spun infront of a judge.

Lee

Lee
[email protected]
www.velocitysportswear.com