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

[jeremyneas 0]

Quote

Short answer: you can choose to jump or not. It is a recreational sport recognized as having little benefit to society

True. But, I think thats what Americans hate to hear. The old, if you don't like it don't do it. Americans always get antsy when people restrict their freedoms, even when those freedoms are potentially dangerous!

True anarchy is the freedom to risk or take your life and not be infringed by society's gov't rule. Ut oh...mixing law and philosophy ... not good.

[ACMESkydiver 0]

Quote

If you are being awarded personal injury amounts for pain and suffering, the its a civil lawsuit that was brought by your own choice.

...yes, but at the bottom of my post, I restated that from the article it said that Rubio was not asking for that amount...so I wouldn't fault him for the jury's decision.

~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

[sdgregory 0]

Show me the money!

Have you done something you were taught could get you hurt and gotten hurt doing it? Have you recently jumped out of an airplane without a canopy? Have jumped into a bonfire to see if you would burn and gotten burned? Have you been hurt cause you were stupid?

Well we think you should be entitled to damages.

Hi I'm Earle Shives and we can settle your case for 99.95!

Just call 1-800-SUE-KING.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Hi I'm Earle Shives and we can settle your case for 99.95!

Just call 1-800-SUE-KING.

That's more than my divorce cost me (first husband).

Judy

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

[jdhill 0]

Are you not even a little put off that someone from PA did not even go to the trial?

If PA could not afford gas/hotel money to at least do that, then why would you have confidence that parachutes are being made properly?

Not saying that they need a big defense team, just someone... dispute that PA knew there was a problem, introduce the waiver, introduce the warning label, introduce what ever else you think ought to be introduced that says this guy is wrong...

I'm fairly sure that the plaintiff did not introduce any of that...

This guy may or may not have had grounds to sue (or win), but with only one side being heard... come on!

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

, (which by the way I also have a RAVEN reserve) I have something on my back design to save my life in the event of anything that could happened and have to use it (hope I don’t have to) respecting the standards (which I do) and fails yes I’ll sue. I bought the reserve canopy after a reseach of wich canopy will be the best in case I need it, in case s**t happens.

No offense, but that's ridiculous. Do you work for the company and they ensure you it would be safe? No, they sold you a product and told you, that it might not work. You go to dzs with signs and waivers stating that your properly manufactured and properly maintained equipment used in the manner it was designed may not work. They didn't give you any guarantees.

You're assuming because it is a reserve canopy that it's guaranteed to save your life. It's not. They tell you that. No one tried to mislead you, you came to this irrational conclusion that nothing could go wrong unless the manufacturer was negligent. Let's go back to the "is this an extreme sport" argument of last week. Yes, it is. You can do everything right, your equipment can work perfectly, and you can still die!!! If you don't have that understanding than you are delusional. And if you do, than you have no right to sue.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Are you not even a little put off that someone from PA did not even go to the trial?

J

No, I'm not. They didn't have the money to defend themselves and, IMO, this lawsuit is lame, has no merits. By the sounds of this jury, it probably wouldn't have mattered if they showed up or not. Alot of juries will look at Precision as the large evil corporation (which I don't believe be true) and only in it for the money. I fly their canopies have 2 of their reserves with no problems, but then again, I accept the fact that skydiving is extremely high risk and that all my equipment is man made and shit happens that cannot be foreseen.

Again, the amount of skydivers wanting/willing to sue is scary as hell. If I ran a gear store, or was a skydiving manufacter or DZO, I would start a list of all the skydivers who think its RIGHT to sue, and deny them any and all service. Luckily for all you who want to sue, I don't and won't.

Judy

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

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

This guy may or may not have had grounds to sue, but with only one side being heard... come on!

You know I do not know if it was deliberate or not (I like to think it just never came into my radar) but I have neglected this point.

I would not have wanted to leave myself without a defense. No matter how much it cost it would have been better than the final outcome.

What were the possible scenarios?

1. Defend yourself and win and possibly owe 250,000 in lawyers fees.

2. Defend yourself and loose and well face it what is 250,000 in the scheme of 53 million?

3. Not defend yourself and possibly get lucky and win. Logic says not bloddy likely. Who has ever one a case they did not show up to fight?

4. Not show up, lose and pay 53 million.

Why didn't they defend themsleves. It would have been the smartest course of action without hindsight.

makes me wonder what is behind the curtain . . .

[BETO74 0]

Every one of us jumps tested equipment that cost money to develop, that chain should never be broken, that’s what made skydive safe to a point. Why do you think we pay almost $2000 is not just strings and fabric the same as a computer is not plastic and silicon. I really think that the System creates a safe environment. (NOT TALKING ABOUT FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITS) they will be other companies that will correct the ways they build canopies or equipment to make it safe and avoid lawsuits how do you think laser technology, CAD technology, wind tunnel etc reach the design of our canopies?

I’m talking about negligence, which can be found in all aspects no only car crashes and medical malpractice.

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

[PhreeZone 15]

Lets do a breakdown of each senerio:

1. Defend yourself and win and possibly owe 250,000 in lawyers fees.
Result: Bankrupcy
2. Defend yourself and loose and well face it what is 250,000 in the scheme of 53 million?
Result: Bankrupcy
3. Not defend yourself and possibly get lucky and win. Logic says not bloddy likely. Who has ever one a case they did not show up to fight?
Only winning choice
4. Not show up, lose and pay 53 million.
Result: Bankrupcy

Not that great of a reason to rush out and start making skydiving gear. You know what else is scary? A rigger could be named in the lawsuit also and could stand to lose everything even if they did everything correct.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[BETO74 0]

[Again, the amount of skydivers wanting/willing to sue is scary as hell. If I ran a gear store, or was a skydiving manufacter or DZO, I would start a list of all the skydivers who think its RIGHT to sue, and deny them any and all service. Luckily for all you who want to sue, I don't and won't.)

----------------------------------------------------------

Yep, a list of people willing to sue and denied them any rights seems more viable than try to do things right without negligence, there is a place in the world like that I think is CUBA

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

[AndyMan 7]

You forgot:

6. Defend yourself and win, countersue for attorneys fees, come out breakeven.

7. Defend yourself and win, countersue for attorneys fees plus punitive damages and come out ahead.

8. Defend yourself and lose, have a managable reasonable judegment against you based on the facts, maybe $100,000-$500,000 payable in installmants over 20 years.

Not defending yourself is the only guaranteed way to lose.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[sdgregory 0]

I believe if they defended themselves they would have been able to work something out with their law firm to get payment to them without filing bankruptcy.

[sdgregory 0]

Andyman you helped make my point. Thanks dude.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

You know what else is scary? A rigger could be named in the lawsuit also and could stand to lose everything even if they did everything correct.

As can the company who sold the gear.

WTF was I thinking, buying into a gear store??

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Yep, a list of people willing to sue and denied them any rights seems more viable than try to do things right without negligence, there is a place in the world like that I think is CUBA

I don't think skydiving gear manufacturers have the ability to deny your rights. But then can and should be able to exercise their right to not do business with you.

Insurance companies will deny to write a car insurance policy for you if you have bad credit. Why? Because statistically, you're more likely to file exaggerated claims. That's here, not in Cuba.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

1. Defend yourself and win and possibly owe 250,000 in lawyers fees.

If you are defending YOURSELF, then who do you owe $250K to?

Also, you left one out...

Truely defend yourself, win, owe nothing.

or

Truely defend yourself in the first trial knowing that you would probably lose, but saving some money for legal representation during an appeal where all you have are judges, and less emotion... you may still lose, you may even win... if you lose your finding isn't nearly as steep because you did not snub the judge and / or jury... you may still end up bankrupt, but you may not.

Someone else stated that all the jury would see is a big evil corporation, who was there to show them differenly?

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[BETO74 0]

(you came to this irrational conclusion that nothing could go wrong unless the manufacturer was negligent.)

Yep I have the irrational concept that if is NEGLIGENCE is WRONG.

I really think we are talking about negligence here not a bad down wing landing under strong winds on a cactus tree which could be categorize as s**t hapens or hey my bad!!!! sorry. Yes for the 4th time sorry if I expect my reserved canopy to save my life in the event, I'm sorry if I expect my car breaks to work everytime. But I will prepare myself for the worse

This reminds me the commercial on TV with a litle girl going straigh to a swiming pool, and the guy says" Try to explain her parents that you could not save her life because you were getting stone."

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

[MarkM 0]

Quote

What were the possible scenarios?

1. Defend yourself and win and possibly owe 250,000 in lawyers fees.

2. Defend yourself and loose and well face it what is 250,000 in the scheme of 53 million?

3. Not defend yourself and possibly get lucky and win. Logic says not bloddy likely. Who has ever one a case they did not show up to fight?

4. Not show up, lose and pay 53 million.

5. Defend yourself without a lawyer, owe nothing in fees if you win or lose.

You don't need a lawyer to sue or defend against a lawsuit in this country. I've seen people give in to idiotic suits because they didn't want the expense of a lawyer, yet the person they were being sued by wasn't using a lawyer themselves.

As typical in Dropzone.com fashion, lot's of heat is being generated with few facts. The plantiff's case was "Rubio contended Precisions knew before his accident that this model of the Raven reserve was defective but didn't take any steps to remedy the situation."

And I'm sorry but if a manufacturer puts out a defective product, knows it's defective and does nothing to fix the problem or warn the consumer, then they deserve to be sued into oblivion. It's not about mistakes, we expect manufacturers to make mistakes and in extreme sports we even accept the risks of those mistakes, but we sure as shit don't expect them to hide those mistakes from us so their profit margin doesn't drop.

Of course I really don't know if that's the real issue here or really what the truth of the matter is. I haven't heard both sides of the story. But then neither did the jury, so it's not at all suprising they ruled they way they did.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

I’m talking about negligence, which can be found in all aspects no only car crashes and medical malpractice.

Okay, if they are negligent, meaning they put out a product they knew could kill or seriously hurt someone, IMO is criminal. They should be thrown in jail. I don't believe Precision would purposely put out a bad product, their own staff jumps their chutes. Otherwise shit happens, and people are not dealing with it anymore. They want that quick fix called MONEY. If you don't want to deal the risks life throws at you, don't leave your bed.

Everytime someone sues and companies have to pay, they have less money for R&D. Take that women in MO whose son and husband were killed while the son was flying. She is suing Cessna. I believe Cessna settled only because that can't afford the big fight and now all that money they dished out, even thought they were not negligent, is less money that will go to developing better products. Same goes with skydiving.

Judy

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

if they are negligent, meaning they put out a product they knew could kill or seriously hurt someone

No. Thats not negligence. You are also negligent if you put out a product that you should have known could kill or seriously hurt. Thats a question for the jury - ie did the manufacturer do everything the could reasonably have been expected to do to ensure the safety of their product?

If they did everything that was reasonable to do eg use a qualified designer, test drops, beta testing etc. then even though the parachute failed, the manufacturer could escape liability.

If they did not do everything reasonable, they just jotted down a nice looking drawing or roughly copied something made by a competitor - then who would really say that they shouldnt be held liable for the injuries that occured?

[slug 1]

This probably dosen't need to be said but I'll do it anyway

I hope there aren't any folks that have raven reserve's that are planning on changing their emergency procedure's in response to this lawsuit.

If you don't trust your raven reserve suck it up and buy a PD or whatever or stay on the ground.

R.I.P.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

Yep, a list of people willing to sue and denied them any rights seems more viable than try to do things right without negligence, there is a place in the world like that I think is CUBA

And my point is we (except for you obviously) don't live in a perfect world. If companies and people have to start paying millions for human error, we totally and completly suck.

Let me borrow your perfect world glasses. I hope you NEVER make a mistake.

Judy

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Mistakes are fine, mistakes happen. Mistakes that could have been forseen and avoided are not fine. The should not be fine and peolpe who allow them to happen should suffer the consequenses.

(please accept this as the general comment it is and not as a specific comment on the parachuting case in question - I do not know what happened in that instance)

[jdhill 0]

Quote

Okay, if they are negligent, meaning they put out a product they knew could kill or seriously hurt someone, IMO is criminal. They should be thrown in jail.

This perhaps is the only reason that stands out as a reason to no-show at the trial...

They knew about the defect, and did nothing... no criminal charges have been filed... go to court to defend yourself, and facts come out during testimony, and are now public record, that you did know... The DA now files charges, and you end up in jail...

Not saying that happened here... but it is only scenario that I have sceen here that would justify a no-show.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke