Vertifly 0 #26 January 7, 2004 I'd say that if the guy thought he was stepping out onto a porch, he's PROBABLY innocent. But let's face it. We jump out of planes people; that's right, AERO-PLANES. In fact, these planes are flying in the air, VERY HIGH IN THE AIR for that matter. Sheeeeesh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #27 January 7, 2004 But a manufacturer with no money is not -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACMESkydiver 0 #28 January 7, 2004 QuoteA manufacturer by any other name is still a manufacturer. ~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACMESkydiver 0 #29 January 7, 2004 QuoteBut a manufacturer with no money is not ...lesse...sell inventory to a 'new' company...sell assets to a 'new' company...declare banko...buy 'new' company... "-and the beat goes on....la de da de dee...la de da de diiii...." ~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpinjackflash 0 #30 January 7, 2004 SSDD Personal Accountability Lame jjfIt's a gas, gas, gas... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #31 January 7, 2004 The lawsuit was alleging that the company knew about problems with the reserve, and neglected to inform the owners of said reserves. that is a serious allegation, and, if true (probably not), I feel the jury was dead on. If there was an inherent design flaw in that canopy and the company, with full knowledge of the flaw, neglected to rectify the situation, then they could very well be at fault for causing this jumper's injuries. Its the same as sending a car out onto the road when the company knows it has faulty breaks. Sure, cars get in accidents. We all know that, and we accept that risk when we drive them, but, we put our trust that the manufacturer would not let a vehicle on the road with a flaw that could potentially cause an accident. Same with canopies. We accept the risks with their normal use, but when a problem with the design of a canopy causes injury to a jumper, that falls outside the realm of normal risk. That said, if there was a flaw in the canopy (probably not), its doubtful that the company woudn't take steps to recall the canopies immediately, for the simple reason that their reputation is on the line. I do find it odd that the company apparently chose not to answer the suit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #32 January 7, 2004 QuoteI do find it odd that the company apparently chose not to answer the suit. It's not that odd. The legal costs for even a single lawsuit would cripple a skydiving equipment manufactorer. They have no choice but to ride the storm. Also, see a post by PhreeZone about the recall of the canopies. There apparently was a Service Bulletin issued about this. -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACMESkydiver 0 #33 January 7, 2004 QuoteThe lawsuit was alleging that the company knew about problems with the reserve, and neglected to inform the owners of said reserves. that is a serious allegation, and, if true (probably not), I feel the jury was dead on. If there was an inherent design flaw in that canopy and the company, with full knowledge of the flaw, neglected to rectify the situation, then they could very well be at fault for causing this jumper's injuries. Um...yeah...that's what I meant to say, if I could have explained myself that eloquently...~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #34 January 7, 2004 This was NOT a jury of our peers.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #35 January 7, 2004 We all know dumping a reseve into a pilot chute in tow is always a iffy situation. I think Mr Galloway pissed off the jury by not showing up. With the advantage of hindsight I don't think he could have done any worse by putting on his own defense. Isn't he the one who was giving out T-shirts for each reserve save? The folks from the PIA may have also been able to help him out. I wonder who the plaintiff used for their expert witness, how can they tell it wasn't a rigger error. I'm surprised the lawyer left out the rigger, airplane manufactor, airplane owner, DZO, pilot, snack bar and anyone else on the DZ etc. Either way it sounds like a hollow victory. Precision may lose their sewing machine but My guess is they will be back under a new name and "ownership". It happens in construction all the time. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #36 January 7, 2004 the manufacturer didn't even have to retain a lawyer. they could just show up to explain their side. Its unorthodox, but in this situation may have been more effective than not showing up at all, because all the jury had to go on was testimony from one side. even if the manufacturer had represented themselves, the situation couldn't have turned out any worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks 0 #37 January 7, 2004 QuoteThis was NOT a jury of our peers. AMEN Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonSanta 0 #38 January 7, 2004 Yah and the guy survived. Was he paralyzed? If not, he has nothing to whine about, really. The reserve saved 'im. What caused it to blow up like that I dunno, though. But he lived through a double mal. He should be kissing the ground with a smile. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #39 January 7, 2004 Keep in mind that the manufactorer would probably not qualify as an expert witness. It's still expensive to run a trial. The case is sad all around. -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #40 January 7, 2004 he wouldn't have to be an expert witness to be on the stand, would he? he's the defendant. he gets to say his piece regardless. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #41 January 7, 2004 Still, I doubt they would listen to him very much. Someone like lawrocket would be able to give a qualified opinion. -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GravityGirl 0 #42 January 7, 2004 QuoteIf anyone knows Rubio personally, please give him this message: FUCK OFF!!! FallRate Have a heart. I don't agree with the law suit, but: I have seen a reserve open so hard that it broke lines. Sounded like a gun shot. The guy spiralled in. When we got to him, he had a severely displaced ankle and was coughing up blood. I held his hand while he was slowly bleeding to death from a torn aorta. I really didn't think he would die, but we got word from the hospital later that night. It definately had an impact on me. I made a few personal choices that day in regards to my own business. Until you are in a situation like that, I don't think you REALLY know how you will react. The guy broke 50 bones in his body. His wife spent countless hours praying for him in the hospital. You can't tell me you know what kind of emotions ensued. Again. I don't agree with the law suit. But, I still feel for the dude. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace and Blue Skies! Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #43 January 7, 2004 even if they didn't listen much, maybe some of it would've sunk in. better than saying nothing at all. Were I on a jury and the defense didn't bother to show up to say their piece, I would assume that to mean that they had no defense to present. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #44 January 7, 2004 Glide Path... opps I mean Flight Concepts has shown that you can change your name and come back. Next person that complains that skydiving is too expensive needs to remember this lawsuit. Why do you think there is "The Uninsured Relative Workshop"? Laywers and juries smell money and feel they can punish companies by driving them to bankrupcy. A better move is to force the issue if there is one to be fixed instead of awarding damages.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Push 0 #45 January 7, 2004 Diverdriver put it very eloquently. And I guess experience taught these companies that putting up a defense is a waste of time and money. -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #46 January 7, 2004 SB20011221 was issued on 21 December, 2001. This incident happened in November, 2001, before the SB was released. I do not know if this 181-M was affected by the SB. The SB does indicate that it was issued in response to 2 –M’s failing after being deployed within operating limits. PA changed the design of the line attachment points starting on 12 April 1999 with the addition of a second bar-tack (which is what the SB requires as a fix for the affected -M's) and again 1 November, 1999 when they switched to a stronger tape for the line attachment points (from Type-III plain weave to a herringbone weave Type-I). Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #47 January 7, 2004 QuoteUntil you are in a situation like that, I don't think you REALLY know how you will react. OK, if I do find myself in the unfortunate situation that Rubio endured and then decide to sue a manufacturer out of existence, you are welcome to tell me to fuck off. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdweller 0 #48 January 7, 2004 Yea thats to bad P.S. By the way I remember meeting you at Pepperell. Were you able to add New Hampshire to your list by "accidently" landing way out?------------------------------------------------------ "From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #49 January 7, 2004 Isn't this the guy Precision responded to in Skydiving? Wasn't he loading beyond the TSO and wasn't at least one opening beyond the TSO? Am I thinking of someone else? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #50 January 7, 2004 QuoteWe all know dumping a reseve into a pilot chute in tow is always a iffy situation. Dumping into a pilot chute in tow should not have made a difference, I think.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
