I hate seeing this crap, we all know the risk.

[billvon 2,400]

>At first Glide Path said that they were fine. Then they said not to
> jump them in turbulent conditions. Then they grounded them, after
> a jumper in Zhills went in, and the jumpers burned his canopy in the
> fire pit...That was about 1994?

They also sold a new lineset intended to correct the problem. I've got one with the new lineset and it seems to work well.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

In that example, why were you driving in such a manner that a tire blowout (which is a common problem) caused you to lose control of the vehicle?

I'm glad you said that. I've had a blowout before, while doing 80mph on I-45. What happened? Chunks of tire were launching over my vehicle, so I let off the gas and pulled to the side. Then I spent 30 minutes trying to figure out the fucked jack/spare that came with the car.


Ok, here's the deal. Skydiving is dangerous, the gear is TSOed, so the gear should perform within the TSO, if it doesn't, then the gear manufacture should be held accountable. However, a HUGE judgement like this is excessive. That alone shows one of a number of things that is wrong with the people in this country, that a jury would award that much money. That's just asinine.

A person getting hurt isn't a reason to make that person a wealthy individual. Paying for medical expenses/lost wages is one thing. Setting a person up so they (and their family) never has to work another day in their life, well, that's just extreme.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

If you buy and use a piece of skydiving equipment, you do so with full knowledge that it can and may fail - and you accept that risk for yourself. That's my take on it anyway... but I'm not a lawyer, and again I'm from the old school.

I agree, but I do expect my reserve to hold together if I am within the operating limits and there are no other circumstances. If my reserve fails and I am injured and then the company releases a SB because my reserve was defective, I'm gonna be pissed. If I fire my reserve into a horseshoe and it gets damaged and I'm injured in the landing, then no problem. I think the big difference here is that the reserve design had a problem.

I do believe in people taking responsibility for their actions, but (if he was within the operating limits of the reserve) then it wasn't his fault or no one's fault. It was the manufacturer's fault. If it was a manufacturing defect, not a design problem, that, again would be different.

Derek

[scottbre 0]

Quote

Keep in mind that Precision didn't even attempt to defend themselves. They didn't show up in court.

In court were the plaintiffs, the lawyers, the judge, and jury. It was essentially a trial in absentia because the defendents didn't bother to show up. Precision explained their actions by claiming they couldn't afford their legal fees. I don't think "we didn't bother to show up" is grounds for appeal.

Wow, I wondered if anyone was going to pick up on this.

Everyone is saying that he had no right to sue, he knew the risks etc. Simple fact of the matter is that everyone has a right to sue. If your suit is frivolous or just done to harass the defendant, there are steps set up in the legal system to countersue the plaintiff, and a countersuit for payment of all attorney's fees is fairly common.

To just choose to not show up in court is just stupid. From what I've read in this thread (which I'm sure is not anywhere close to all the relevant information) it looks as though a proper defense and countersuit would have had a strong likelyhood of success. If as a business owner, you aren't intelligent enough to see that, then maybe you shouldn't be in business.

Also I don't see how attorneys fees and stress for defending a case that you would have a fair chance of defending successfully could be much worse than those that you would have to deal with by being forced into bankruptcy because you pulled a no-show in court.

It sucks that this lawsuit happened in the first place, but you can't just decide that you don't want to play by the rules because you don't like one of them. That's how you get kicked out of the game.

It makes me angry that Precision was sued in the first place, but it also makes me angry that such a high profile representative of our sport (a manufacturer) could make such a poor decision about how to handle it.

"Your mother's full of stupidjuice!"
My Art Project

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Remember, the lawyers are only one part of the equation. Don't forget the jury. It was the jury who gave the super-sized award, why? Because one day they think they'll get hurt and get the same settlement. Damn the jury, that's at the root of this problem, I think.

-
Jim

So are we suppose to kill all the jurors now? If it will fix the problem, I'm all for it.

the USA new slogan

Welcome to the United States of America, where your get rich quick dreams come true. You can sue anyone for anything, plenty of lawyers to take your case and plenty of juries with the same dream.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[billvon 2,400]

>I agree, but I do expect my reserve to hold together if I am within
>the operating limits and there are no other circumstances.

I know I've seen both mains and reserves that are properly packed, maintained and operated malfunction for no good reason. It's a risk we take.

>If my reserve fails and I am injured and then the company releases
>a SB because my reserve was defective, I'm gonna be pissed.

You would be less pissed if they steadfastly refused to make any changes, so they did not seem "at fault?" I know companies do just that, but I consider that a bad response to a problem. Designs _should_ evolve. If they didn't, we'd still be using pins and cones because no one would want to risk admitting that it wasn't that hot of a design. (After all, if they change the design, they're admitting they had faulty gear before, right?)

>I do believe in people taking responsibility for their actions, but (if
> he was within the operating limits of the reserve) then it wasn't his
> fault or no one's fault. It was the manufacturer's fault.

I don't believe that. No one can design a ram-air parachute that will function properly 100% of the time. Parachute deployment is a chaotic event; even the best-designed parachute can have a rouge opening that can damage the jumper or his equipment.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Welcome to the United States of America, where your get rich quick dreams come true. You can sue anyone for anything, plenty of lawyers to take your case and plenty of juries with the same dream.

The lawyers follow the money. If juries quit handing out big judgements, lawyers will stop taking cases. If juries quit handing out big judgements, corporations won't be so quick to settle.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[BETO74 0]

Totally agree with you I just would like to add, what happens with the manufacture recommnedations and exceded the max loads for the canopy I'm sure the jury cover that part, is like taking a Jaguar off road and complain about why it broke down. I agree we are in a high risk sport and I'm 100% with taking responsability for that but what if the equipment that I bought to safe my life doesnt work properly under normal conditions is not just my responsability for putting my own life at risk.

Just my two cts, flame on

http://web.mac.com/ac057a/iWeb/AC057A/H0M3.html

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I know I've seen both mains and reserves that are properly packed, maintained and operated malfunction for no good reason. It's a risk we take.

That is a risk I am willing to accept.

Quote

You would be less pissed if they steadfastly refused to make any changes, so they did not seem "at fault?" I know companies do just that, but I consider that a bad response to a problem. Designs _should_ evolve. If they didn't, we'd still be using pins and cones because no one would want to risk admitting that it wasn't that hot of a design. (After all, if they change the design, they're admitting they had faulty gear before, right?)

I would be more pissed if they didn't fix the problem. But there shouldn't be a problem in the first place. A reserve should not rip apart when it is deployed within the TSO'd limits. A malfunction is different from failing from a design defect.

Quote

I don't believe that. No one can design a ram-air parachute that will function properly 100% of the time. Parachute deployment is a chaotic event; even the best-designed parachute can have a rouge opening that can damage the jumper or his equipment.

Nor do I expect the gear to work 100% of the time, but I do expect it to hold together when within the operating limitations. I also expect a manufacturer that finds a problem with their product to recall them and fix them. The design was changed long before the SB came out.

Derek

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Totally agree with you I just would like to add, what happens with the manufacture recommnedations and exceded the max loads for the canopy I'm sure the jury cover that part, is like taking a Jaguar off road and complain about why it broke down. I agree we are in a high risk sport and I'm 100% with taking responsability for that but what if the equipment that I bought to safe my life doesnt work properly under normal conditions is not just my responsability for putting my own life at risk.

Just my two cts, flame on

All my equipment is man made. Human's make errors and although every step is taken to make it the best product it can be, shit happens, it sucks really bad that we can't live in a perfect world with perfect people and perfect products, all we have are frivolous lawsuits.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

I agree we are in a high risk sport and I'm 100% with taking responsability for that but what if the equipment that I bought to safe my life doesnt work properly under normal conditions is not just my responsability for putting my own life at risk.

What part of your choice to jump out of an airplane, trusting only some lines and some fabric to save your ass, is anybody's responsibility but yours?

Have you read the owner's manuals for your gear? If so, which part of "It is sold with all faults and without any warranty of fitness for any purpose" isn't clear? If not, why haven't you?

You pays your money. You takes your chances. Chances are your gear is going to work exactly as it was designed to. But shit happens when you're jumping out of airplanes. And that shit, regardless of why it happens, becomes 100%, without a doubt, covering every last detail, even a design or manufacturing flaw in your gear, your responsibility if you choose to jump out of airplanes.

imho, of course.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Is anyone aware of any precedent for a case like this? Has anyone sued equipment manufacturers with this much success before? Is yes, does anyone remember what happened? It would be nice to know if we will have to say goodbye to Precision.

Also, runaway jury perhaps? Lawrocket?

Do not call this a runaway jury. The simple fact that PD did not defend itself is justification for this award. The plaintiffs put damages of this high amount to the jury. There was no defense to refute it?

The jury is tasked with deciding issues of fact, and can only work with the information given. Since there was no opposing information or argument, the jury was forced to find for the plaintiff. I'd actually be surprised if the award, without damages, was not a directed verdict by the judge, where he/she tells the jury to rule.

As for the punitives? I can't see how they came to that figure. But I also know that PD might not be able to fight that, since they seem unlikely to appeal. The judgment will likely stand.

Edited to Add: It appears this discussion has been covered by AndyMan. It's actually the first thing I noticed to explain this verdict.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Wow, I wondered if anyone was going to pick up on this.

I'm amazed that nobody *IS* picking up on it. It seems to me that it's entirely crutial to the case.

It changes it from somebody going out of business because they got sued to death, to a form of legal suicide.

The blame lies entirely in Precision not showing up - not some person who thought he had a case.

Because of this - all these other debates are entirely meaningless. Wether he had a case or not is irrelevant. Precision lost because they didn't show up.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Precision lost because they didn't show up.

Perhaps they lost because they couldn't afford to show up...

[scottbre 0]

Quote

Because of this - all these other debates are entirely meaningless. Wether he had a case or not is irrelevant. Precision lost because they didn't show up.

Yep.

"Your mother's full of stupidjuice!"
My Art Project

[jeremyneas 0]

Couple of comments to what people are saying. Strictly case speaking.

As for an appeal: Remember, an appeal is NOT another jury trial. There is no evidence, there is no witnesses. There is a panel of judges and they ONLY rule on the legal presentation of the case, and to make sure that there were no mistakes or misjudgements (by the judge) that affected the outcome of the case. I find it hard to believe there could be a possible appeal.

As for the case: George could have done a number of tactics to poke holes in the plaintiff.

1. We already mentioned operating the parachute in limits, weight, and speed.

2. What caused the Pilot Chute in Tow malfunction? Was the PC maintained? Was it a rag? Was the main too big for the container? Was the closing loop too small?

3. How does the jumper take care of his equipment? Is the reserve in the trunk of his car 90% of the time around chemicals?

4. How about that tag on the parachute? Would be nice to show a jury that disclaimer?...that disclaimer EVERYWHERE!

This is just off the top of my head. But not showing up for the trial is an autoloss. You disrespect the court, the jury, and the claim. You think those jury members like being paid $12 a day? Can't afford a defense? How bout that judgement!

I don't know all the facts, and I don't know how I would rule, but the anger in the industry should be pointed at the irrisponsible way GG handled the case.

[adamT 0]

I know of two jumpers last year who had their center cells blow out on their raven reserves during terminal deployments. I believe they were loaded and deployed within the recommended limits. I do not know the exact model reserves in question, but i can find out.
A precision sales rep actually had the nerve to tell one of the jumpers that he was a test to the quality of his product. Because the partially failed reserve was still landable.
I have a raven-m 181. It has one terminal deployment that i know of, after witch it was sent back to the manufacture for inspection and it checked out fine. I have one subterminal deployment on it since then and it seemed to being flying just fine, although it was a short flight. Although i am hoping i don't have and terminal reserve rides before i can get me a PD reserve.

[billvon 2,400]

>Nor do I expect the gear to work 100% of the time, but I do expect it
>to hold together when within the operating limitations.

Sometimes they don't. I've seen 'perfect' reserves with broken lines that simply opened brutally hard. I'd expect them to tweak the design if this happened more than once, but I also don't think you will ever get a parachute that is 100% reliable or can never open hard enough to damage itself.

>I also expect a manufacturer that finds a problem with their product
> to recall them and fix them.

I think many manufacturers do not do that because they fear a reaction like yours - "If they admit to a problem I'm gonna be really pissed."

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Perhaps they lost because they couldn't afford to show up...

George himself could have walked into the courtroom himself and explain the waivers, and assumption of risks, that the guy knew what he was doing.

I can understand not wanting to hire a team of lawyers, but not bothering to do it on the cheap just seems to me as laziness.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I see no reason for anyone to file a lawsuit in this sport

I do. If I take a piece of equipment and use it within its limits, as it was designed and it explodes because it was poorly made, or modified and then not properly tested (Which was the Micro Raven case).

Then yes I would sue. I would also hope my family would sue if RWS had put a skyhook on my rig incorrectly, and it resulted in a reserve total.

I would not want them to sue if I did something stupid...Hurting myself while drunk at a DZ comes to mind, but also things like...I hook in under a good canopy. I burn in due to not dealing with a mal in time...you get the picture.

Quote

Do you feel that Reflex should have been sued for the closing loop fatality a few years ago? What about Sunpath that had a fatality for the same reason only a few days later?

Yes...It was a design failure.

Quote

I have been injured in this sport several times

And I have not.


The simple fact is if shit happens...I don't want anyone to sue...But if it is the direct fault of bad design, poor construction, or negligence. Then it is game on.

You are free to do as you please.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Because of this - all these other debates are entirely meaningless. Wether he had a case or not is irrelevant. Precision lost because they didn't show up.

_Am

I have to disagree with you completely. I don't think any skydiving manufactuer has that much money to defend over stupid lawsuits. My stupid xsister-in-law didn't show up to court on a restraining order she filed, so the court just rescheduled.

The judgement might as well be for a $100,000,000,000,000,000. Its just a stupid as the suit itself and the person who brought it.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[jeremyneas 0]

Quote

I don't think any skydiving manufactuer has that much money to defend over stupid lawsuits.

Stupid? I don't think so. This isn't a guy suing becuase he couldn't pronouce "Xaos." This is a guy who was seriously injured using a product manufactured by PA, and that type of injury should be taked VERY seriously.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

A person getting hurt isn't a reason to make that person a wealthy individual. Paying for medical expenses/lost wages is one thing. Setting a person up so they (and their family) never has to work another day in their life, well, that's just extreme.

I'm speaking generally, not about this case:

Puntive damages are necessary. They are an effective method of prevention to keep companies from doing things they know they shouldn't because of the risk of losing that kind of lawsuit.

At the same time, though, many people abuse this system to try to get rich. And contrary to accusations about the American Public in general, it is usually the lawyers that pressure them into it.

Simple solution. Lawyers may not collect fees based on the amount of punitive damages awarded. And punitive damages do not go to the person suing. They go to some kind of charitable fund, or how about to reducing the public debt.

This way you still have an effective method of prevention and punishment, but no one is abusing it in a get rich quick scheme.

[scottbre 0]

Quote

Its just a stupid as the suit itself and the person who brought it.

If the suit was as stupid and pointless as you seem to think it is, then it it likely that going to court to defend it wouldn't have cost GG a thing (countersuit for legal fees), not to mention it would have helped create a legal precedent, which would have been beneficial to other manufacturers facing the same kinds of suits in the future. Instead it looks like it's going to cost him his business.

So lets say that he ran himself into bankruptcy defending the suit but did so successfully. Where would that leave things? Well he would be just as worse off as far as the financial stability of his business goes, but there would now be a judgement on the books in favor of manufactures in this type of situation, should this happen again in the future. This suit could have (from a Gestault perspective) been good for the skydiving community. Instead it's just added another black mark to the perception of our beloved sport.

"Your mother's full of stupidjuice!"
My Art Project

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Quote

I don't think any skydiving manufactuer has that much money to defend over stupid lawsuits.

Stupid? I don't think so. This isn't a guy suing becuase he couldn't pronouce "Xaos." This is a guy who was seriously injured using a product manufactured by PA, and that type of injury should be taked VERY seriously.

I KNOW I CAN GET HURT OR KILLED SKYDIVING. I KNOW AND ACCEPT THE FACT THAT ALL MY EQUIPMENT IS MAN MADE AND COULD MALFUNCTION.

the lawsuit is stupid and is a waste of the courts time.

As I said in another post, the amount of you out there so willing to sue over skydiving is terrifying to me. I really thought all skydivers were different and didn't have that "sue sue sue" mentality. I was very wrong.

Judy

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.