Why zero liability?

[billvon 2,395]

>b) sue him for all his worth, and not because of a desire for
>vengeance but because you need the frigging money to survive

If there are people out there who will not be able to survive without use of their legs, skydiving is not for them. Sorry to sound blunt, but if your life will effectively end due to a skydiving injury, then it's not for you. (Or perhaps it is; just accept your life will end when you are injured beforehand.)

You listed "using an unlicensed pilot" as one reason. I came within one load of being on a cessna that crashed due to a less-than-stellar pilot (appropriately licensed) who made a mistake. I knew he was less than stellar, but back then my desire to jump was far greater than my common sense. I lucked out by not being on that plane. Indeed, had an unlicensed pilot been flying that plane, all the people on the plane may well have survived. It is the outcome, not the reasons behind it, you should consider when deciding whether to jump or not.

The bad outcome you mention can happen for a great many reasons. Some could have been avoided by the DZO (by getting a better airplane, or not skimping on maintenance, whatever.) Some could have been avoided by the pilot, and some could have been avoided by the other jumpers on the load. ALL of them could have been avoided by you.

>If it's option a) one could reasonably assume that this kind of
>unaccountabilty would actually encourage this kind of behaviour, and
>possibly attract lots of dishonest people to our sport.

Ted Mayfield relied a lot on a). He went out of business. So that doesn't really hold.

[mr2mk1g 10]

You guys should realise there is a world of difference in law between:

a) negligence (legalese for a fuck-up, a mistake, an accident, someones "fault" sure but shit happens kinda stuff).

b) gross negligence (something far far more serious).

We have to accept that people around us are going to be negligent occasionally in this sport. People just are sometimes; it's a given. If you can't accept that; do not jump. You have specifically signed away your rights to take issue with people's negligence.

The situation with gross negligence (examples of which Kallend has provided) may well prove to be significantly different in law (depending on jurisdictional issues of course).

Gross negligence is not merely the far end of the scale - it can be poles apart legally speaking from plain old negligence.

[danielmaxin 0]

Didn't want to continue this post any further but some of the last replies really answered my question after all .
I did not realize that the DZ is after all liable as far as federal regulations in aviation are concerned.
I am going to repeat soemthing and maybe I will be understood. It is not about me wanting to sue. If I die I couldn't care less and If am injured I will use medical insurance that doesn't exclude skydiving.
What I disliked about the waiver is the overall message.
It would sound different to a new student if the message was somehting like:" we are required to provide a plane with current maintanance , a licensed pilot, etc etc BUT any shit can still happen" That is different than saying " Whatever hapens we don;t care"
And again, I know they DO care. An instructor with thousands and thousands of jumps probably did not take safety issues lightly. It's just the message in that fucking waiver that sounds bad to me overall although I agree with 90% of its content.
And please do not bother to tell me that I should or should not skydive . This is a personal decision and if I do it means that I signed the waiver. So the fear that I am going to look for someone to sue is ridiculous.
Let the DZ's without the waiver fear me if they wish:)

To conclude, my point was that eventhough there are 1000,s of reasons that can happen that lead to injury or death there are some things that can and must be done to prevent and reduce the risks and some of them are just mentioned before: licensed pilots, maintained planes, authorised repairs, repacks of reserves don on time etc...these can be done AND ENFORCED so I don;t see a problem to assume liability here...Maybe the packing example was wrong...
But what can you say about the tandem master who exited the plane with attached only at two points with the student?...there is a video with that, can't remember the name though. That kind of shit is avoidable to say the least.
And another thing...When I mentioned the poor image of the sport I meant the fact that people out of this sport , most of them, see us suicidal freaks. And that is why it is so hard to find medical or accident insurance that do not exclude skydiviong...Wouldn't you like to change this impression? Wouldn't you like to pay less for life insurance and other stuff like that?
The fact that you can't it means maybe that the image of the sport is not ideal. Getting drunk behind the wheels might be much more dangerous than skydiving but outside people do not see that .And maybe the way skydiving is presented to new comers has to do with this image. You like it that way? Fine! I don't! But that doesn't mean I don;t like to skydive! And to those who said they won;t skydive with me: you didn't get it: I am obssesed with safety issues means that will follow carefully and alawys the strictest safety guidelines. It's not about sueing. It's about doing something cool and being safe in the same time. If you don't like that then I am the one affraid to jump with you

that's it for this post from me!
As soon as I write my version of the waiver I'll let ya know

• Quote

[billvon 2,395]

A few comments on this:

>What I disliked about the waiver is the overall message.

Keep in mind that the waiver is not there to give students an accurate portrayal of what will happen to them. It is to a) tell them the _worst_ of what can happen and b) cover the drop zone legally. It's like the labels on our gear. Many helmets say "this helmet provides no head protection." Doesn't mean that getting kicked in the head will be just as bad whether you are wearing it or not. It just means you can't _rely_ on it working a certain way.

>And again, I know they DO care.

Well, that's the important part - and it sounds like you realize that, which makes me think the system works.

>But what can you say about the tandem master who exited the
>plane with attached only at two points with the student?

That's a good example of the sort of screwup that may happen to a new student. DZO's, TM's and instructors try to prevent such things from happening, but they do happen - which is one reason the waiver is so scary sounding. Sure, those things should not happen. But they do.

[nbblood 0]

Quote

What I disliked about the waiver is the overall message.
It would sound different to a new student if the message was somehting like:" we are required to provide a plane with current maintanance , a licensed pilot, etc etc BUT any shit can still happen" That is different than saying " Whatever hapens we don;t care"

I'm sorry you don't like the language, the industry simply can't afford to be tied up in legal actions and suits. It's better to be blunt and up front than try to sugar coat something.

Quote

And again, I know they DO care. An instructor with thousands and thousands of jumps probably did not take safety issues lightly. It's just the message in that fucking waiver that sounds bad to me overall although I agree with 90% of its content.

You're right. They DO care about safety. But it's still YOUR responsibility.

Now, here's my point of view. The attached document is a draft of an enclosure to my last will and testament that specifically addresses skydiving. The final is very similar, notarized and included with my will. Anyway, it's how I feel about liability and responsibility.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[unformed 0]

If you don't mind, I'd like to add a copy of that, or something similar to my will.

I don't think my parents or beneficiaries would sue, but this could guarantee that.

This ad space for sale.

[WeakMindedFool 0]

I'm gonna sue you...I want your dog...

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos

[nbblood 0]

I don't mind at all.

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Human error is understable but that applies to the surgeon that cuts you open also. He performs much more complicated tasks than the packer yet he is liable and we all know what malpraxis means.

I think it interesting that you point to surgeons to compare liability with skydiving. They are apples and oranges. There are huge and very common sense differences.

Let's picture a person who is suffering from appendicitis going to a hospital. This person is immediately greeted with a waiver releasing the surgeon from all liability in the event of a mistake.

That patient is left with two choices: 1) waive liability and get possibly lousy care; or 2) die. It turns out that this really isn't a good policy, and is not something that society would actually benefit from.

On the other hand, you've got an unsafe activity that you want to participate in. The waiver says, "THIS IS UNSAFE AND MAY KILL OR MAIM YOU." Welcome to the world of informed consent. "YOU CAN BE KILLED IN ANY NUMBER OF WAYS AND EVEN THROUGH NEGLIGENCE. YOU GET NO GUARANTEES." You say, "Hmm. They are trying to scare me outta doing this.

You therefore have the choice - sign the waiver and do something that can kill you or not sign the waiver and have a better chance at survival today. See the difference between a doctor and a DZ? Unlike the surgeon example, the power has shifted in that life or death choice. The patient can't reasonably say "no." The prospective jumper can say, "No effing way" and be fine.

You are goddamned RIGHT they are trying to scare you. You waive the risks, and for that they must tell you the risks. How much of a waiver is it if the waiver says, "The risks of skydiving are minimal. Parachutes are fail-safe nowadays, and technology means that the risk is the same as for a Ferris Wheel." A waiver painting a cozy picture doesn't tell you the REAL consequences, and hence it is not an informed waiver for which you provide informed, knowing and intelligent consent.

If you wanna risk death, the risk is yours.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tbrown 26]

Doctors and hospitals are protected by (exorbitent) malpractice insurance, because society needs a medical profession, or we'd all die a lot sooner. Society has no such need for skydivers, or to protect an extreme sport that most people think is nuts anyway.

Our sport doesn't make enough money to survive ina climate of litigation. So sign the waiver or go away. No apologies about it, be a man (or a woman for that matter) and accept the risk or GO AWAY !

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I do belive there are a few DZ's that allow you to jump that allow for the right to sue. By accepting the right to sue you jumps will be $300 per jump ticket this is not a smartass post, it was on a waiver I signed (BTW I went with the $20 dollar jump tickets )

Adventure Center Skydiving DZ in Hollister, CA also has similar option in the waiver, but the price is $500 :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Doctors and hospitals are protected by (exorbitent) malpractice insurance

yes, and that's you and me who pays their insurance bills - that's why medicine in US is relatively expensive. We're paying to have a right to sue a doctor.

If DZ has to have kind of liability insurance covering injured skydivers, guess who will pay the bill? There will be you and me again.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[danielmaxin 0]

can't leave the thread die it seems... Just for the general knowledge, I know of a small Dropzone who has no waiver and has normal prices. AS a matter of fact when I found about that dropzone I kind of thought I should ask around about the waiver to get more information about it.
. So the only thing I can say is perhaps the dropzone that doesn't require the waiver is simply taking financial risks just as any other taken risks you know like jumping from the plane. I am not going to say the name of that DZ because I am no longer sure that this would be a smart idea given how people reacted.
And about those who charge 500$ if you don't sign... The kind of freak who sued coffee makers because he was burned from the spilled coffee might as well pay those 500$ and if he gets a small scratch on the dropzone might as well sue for that reason. So 500$ jump ticket is hardly a statement.
Anyway my initial question was answered but it seems that other pop out.
How come this is a touchy subject? Exactly how many of you felt threatened by frivolous lawsuits?
So many in this forum preach humility in this sport but being humble means to also admit that the system is not perfect and is open to debate.

[Scrumpot 1]

JP, you've really put on your "New York" (attitude) since moving out east, haven't you?

"Laid back" California now well behind you I see!

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[Scrumpot 1]

Yeah. Go take up free-climbing will ya!

Don't back down! You were right (for what you WANTED to say). See, just doesn't have the same effect.

Give me a break. Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Bowling (as a "sport") doesn't have any feelings. Why are you worried that you hurt them then?

I find the reference (where applicable), quite germane.

Blues,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[billvon 2,395]

>Exactly how many of you felt threatened by frivolous lawsuits?

I had a friend of mine driven out of business by one. Note that one reason most DZ's have waivers is sort of darwinian - the ones with the good waivers survive. Glad your DZ hasn't been sued yet, though.

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

Anyway my initial question was answered but it seems that other pop out.
How come this is a touchy subject? Exactly how many of you felt threatened by frivolous lawsuits?

Many (most?) skydivers believe strongly in personal responsibility. Demanding the right to sue is seen as an abdication of that responsibility.

It's definitely a hot-button topic, but future discussion of why might be better in Speaker's Corner.

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

Many (most?) skydivers believe strongly in personal responsibility. Demanding the right to sue is seen as an abdication of that responsibility.

It's definitely a hot-button topic, but future discussion of why might be better in Speaker's Corner.

Actually, that brings up an interesting question ... are waivers just as strong in other parts of the world?

As an example, when visiting New Zealand, I did some of the types of activities (whitewater rafting for one) that would require nice, long waivers in the US. Nothing at all there. I didn't jump over there, so I don't know if skydiving is treated the same way.

Is this an industry-wide approach or is it just due to our litigious society in the U.S.?

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

As an example, when visiting New Zealand, I did some of the types of activities (whitewater rafting for one) that would require nice, long waivers in the US. Nothing at all there. I didn't jump over there, so I don't know if skydiving is treated the same way.

New Zealand has an unusual system that I don't fully understand. I don't think you can sue, but your medical costs are covered by the state. Maybe one of our Kiwi friends can explain properly?

Quote

Is this an industry-wide approach or is it just due to our litigious society in the U.S.?

There's a standard 4-page wavier in Australia. Every dropzone I've been to has the same one - I believe it was developed by the APF - and after a nasty scare due to a loophole in the law, the law was amended and it seems to be pretty solid.

People still try though. I know that one gear manufacturer here has just fended off an ambulance-chasing lawsuit which, even though it was dismissed, costs them tens of thousands of dollars to defend.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

What would your reaction to this situation be:
b) sue him for all his worth, and not because of a desire for vengeance but because you need the frigging money to survive

I already addressed this above. You may need money to survive, but who said you'll get it from lawsuit? The DZ is not something huge like McDonalds or GM, so don't expect to get a lot of money anyway.

If money is the thing you care about, just get yourself life and disability insurance.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Exactly how many of you felt threatened by frivolous lawsuits?

Every person should always feel threatened by them. It's why I have 12 separate insurance policies for every aspect of my life in which liability may accrue.

A little known fact - you can get sued for ANYTHING. Let's say billvon here gets hit with a lawsuit by someone claiming that he damaged her because she saw him ride a bike. Yes, indeed, someone can file a suit for that.

Now, this person will not win. But billvon's gotta tell the court that. With a couple thousand dollars and 60-90 days, he can get the case dismissed.

So, why fear frivolous lawsuits? Because there is very little that can be done to prevent them, and fighting them will cost you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

JP, you've really put on your "New York" (attitude) since moving out east, haven't you?

"Laid back" California now well behind you I see!

Is that it? I thought I was an asshole no matter where I am......

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Brian425 0]

Daniel,
This is a very hot topic. Personally, I think that a skydiver should not sue unless it is a case of Gross Negligence. Gross Negligence is a willful disregard for the safety of others or complete recklessness.

I doubt that the waivers will cover prevent you winning a gross negligence lawsuit. I could be wrong.

I will tell you about me. On 8/7/04, I landed out and hit a tree. I had around 35 jumps or so at the time. It was a jump all about learning and I was with two people that I trusted. I was the spotter. Green light came on, I checked the spot and air traffic. The people I was jumping with watched what I was doing and felt comfortable that the spot was good. We landed off and I got seriously hurt.

Who was at fault? The pilot put the green light on. The person at fault was me!! The green light was on because that was the pilot's best estimate of the start of jump run. I was the spotter. I chose to get out of the plane. I made the series of errors that caused my injuries.

Personally, I would not sue a DZ. It's my choice.

Make the choice to jump or not to jump based on what is in your heart. I would be more afraid of a DZ with no waivers than one with substantial waivers. It's a business and in the business of skydiving, the waivers very blunt.


This is my story if you are interested.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1201916;search_string=tree;#1201916

The only time you should look down on someone is when you are offering them your hand.

[skinnyfat 0]

Quote

I know that one gear manufacturer here has just fended off an ambulance-chasing lawsuit which, even though it was dismissed, costs them tens of thousands of dollars to defend.

This was the point I was trying to make. Waiver or no waiver, based on our litigious society, it can happen and of it does, its gonna cost big money to the DZ or whoever to defend it, no matter how frivilous.

Quote

A little known fact - you can get sued for ANYTHING. Let's say billvon here gets hit with a lawsuit by someone claiming that he damaged her because she saw him ride a bike. Yes, indeed, someone can file a suit for that.

Exactly...and it sucks, welcome to the USA.

[AFFI 0]

Thats it, I am gonna sue McDonalds cuz my ass looks like it was slapped with a waffle iron!