Lawyers using Dropzone.com

[mik 2]

I have seen many posts on these threads cautioning posters about putting information on here that might be used by lawyers in litigation.

I cannot remember any posts about this actually happening and information on here being successfully used in a court case.

Does anyone have direct knowledge of posts on dz.com being used in a case and impacting the outcome of a case (or trial or whatever it is called in each country)?

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

[madhatter 0]

My mantra: I'm not paranoid, I just think someone's out to get me.

Despite all the [?]useful[/?] information posted on dizzycom, it can easily be taken out of context by a whuffo. Add a law degree to that and, even if not used in context, you can give an ambulance chaser a field day by voicing an innocent opinion/question.



My 2c worth

A VERY MERRY UNBIRTHDAY TO YOU!!!
D.S # 125

[tdog 0]

yes - USA - and the case is still pending and within the statue of limitations, so I am not going to say anything more.

Further, in an accident, a newspaper reporter called me based upon finding me on this site and somehow getting my contact info by connecting the dots. He told me it was because he found me here.

He did not get any meat and potatoes from me - however when no one else would talk either he ended up using anonymous posts on this site as "reputable sources" to make a fancy front page Sunday newspaper story.

Often lessons learned from incidents are "global" and "universal" and do not require specifics that link them back to a specific incident for everyone to learn.

[DSE 3]

This site and posts from it are specifically cited in the legal documents between USPA and Skyride/ASC as well.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Lawyers using Dropzone.com

I only use it to score chicks.



If I ever succeed, I'll letcha know.

[JohnRich 4]

And they get paid $300 per hour to troll here!

[Andy9o8 0]

Good point. I'll send you my bill.

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Quote

Lawyers using Dropzone.com

I only use it to score chicks.



If I ever succeed, I'll letcha know.

Just post pics!
Of the chicks this time!!!!!

top

Jump more, post less!

[mik 2]

Thanks for the responses so far.

If I understand correctly (and I may be wrong eg I don't know the detail of the USPA dispute referred to), information is used in a pending case (so not resolved so we don't know whether posts on dz.com have impacted the outcome of the case), information is used by speculative 'ambulance chasers' and comments are used in correspondence between parties in dispute.

And by newspapers of course.

But I still don't understand whether information posted on here by (sometimes) inexperienced jumpers would be accepted as 'expert' opinion to the extent that it has actually changed the outcome of a case.

I would imagine that in any case that gets to court, if the prosecution tried to use comments from dz.com as evidence, the defence would find a real expert to counter those comments (and vice versa). I fully understand that this would cost money to defend ($300 an hour or whatever) so would be a pain in the arse, but I still am not sure whether there is any real risk of comments on here being used and accepted as expert testimony in a court and changing the outcome.

So from the responses so far, it seems to me that posts saying ' be careful what you say on here because lawyers read this site' may be over stating the risk. If anyone has examples that they can quote where comments on dz.com have made a real difference to a case, and they can disclose the detail, I would be very interested. Thanks again.

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

[tdog 0]

>>>But I still don't understand whether information posted on here by (sometimes) inexperienced jumpers would be accepted as 'expert' opinion to the extent that it has actually changed the outcome of a case.

----

Consider a grieving family, confused and frustrated, and their lawyer, using what is said to start digging for more. You will never know how many times what is said causes a (groundless) lawsuit that will cost money to defend.

[chrismgtis 0]

Quote

My mantra: I'm not paranoid, I just think someone's out to get me.

Despite all the [?]useful[/?] information posted on dizzycom, it can easily be taken out of context by a whuffo. Add a law degree to that and, even if not used in context, you can give an ambulance chaser a field day by voicing an innocent opinion/question.



My 2c worth

Yea, but ... the Internet age. You either don't say shit, and never participate in any discussions online, or you do. I mean, all I'm saying is that if it was up to people like lawyers, we would live in a police state and couldn't so much as breath without permission and paying tax for every breath. As much as I hate that what I say might put someone in jail, there's still free speech and we shouldn't not use it for the reasons I just spoke of, because then they win and as we all know the freedom of all is more important than than freedom of one.

Quote

>>>But I still don't understand whether information posted on here by (sometimes) inexperienced jumpers would be accepted as 'expert' opinion to the extent that it has actually changed the outcome of a case.

----

Consider a grieving family, confused and frustrated, and their lawyer, using what is said to start digging for more. You will never know how many times what is said causes a (groundless) lawsuit that will cost money to defend.

As FUBAR as the court system is, at least in the United States, nothing the court system does surprises me whatsoever. I've read way too many cases in the past 2 years proving the court system needs to completely step down and be rethought.

The forum moderators/owner could say, "Don't talk about this or that", but the fact is they would no longer have a forum after that, because we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

My opinion is definitely not expert. Whose opinion really is? No one in existence.

One fact I DO know; Judges and lawyers participate in thousands of cases every day that they have absolutely no right whatsoever. Judges that know absolutely zero about technology judge Information Technology cases and that's some of the most screwed up stuff I've seen. It makes about as much sense as a janitor deciding why a nuclear reactor failed.

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[mik 2]

Quote

>>>But I still don't understand whether information posted on here by (sometimes) inexperienced jumpers would be accepted as 'expert' opinion to the extent that it has actually changed the outcome of a case.

----

Consider a grieving family, confused and frustrated, and their lawyer, using what is said to start digging for more. You will never know how many times what is said causes a (groundless) lawsuit that will cost money to defend.

Thanks for your response - I fully understand that it costs money to defend a case (that may be groundless). And the site can be used to dig for more information.

But my question remains. Have comments on here actually impacted the outcome of a case?

Or is the real concern that posting comments (for example when an incident occurs) might result directly in some speculative / groundless legal action? (If this is the perceived risk, I wonder whether people who are inclined to start such speculative / groundless action would do so whether or not there are comments on this site).

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

[DSE 3]

Quote

But my question remains. Have comments on here actually impacted the outcome of a case?

If you're looking for proof positive that the outcome of any case was solely tied to commentary on this (or any other internet forum in any sort of a lawsuit) then you're looking for leprechauns.
Asked and answered. Yes.
Posts from members of the dropzone.com community have been used as specific evidence in a court case. The case didn't go before a judge because it settled. But the posts did have a direct impact on the proceedings of the case.

[ghost47 18]

Quote

Posts from members of the dropzone.com community have been used as specific evidence in a court case. The case didn't go before a judge because it settled. But the posts did have a direct impact on the proceedings of the case.

I'm very curious as to how this would happen. The only thing I can think of is if one of the defendants (or plaintiffs) themselves posted on here. If that happened then that statement would probably be allowed as admissible evidence.

Additionally, I could MAYBE see a scenario where a lawyer tried to use forum posts as evidence of some sort of custom and practice of skydivers. I would think most judges would not allow that though, because there's no real evidence of who the posters are, that they're actual skydivers, etc.

But other than the two scenarios above, I'm having a hard time seeing the legal theory that would allow your post in Incidents to be used to prove or disprove anything in trial. I mean, with bad opposing counsel and bad judges, I guess many things are possible.

Turning to the practical side, I could see how posts could affect things by:

1. Making someone think there's a case

2. Educating a lawyer as to the types of questions (s)he should ask. It also might lead them to witnesses to the incident.

Other than that, I can't think of what else.

On the plus side, I think speculation and brainstorming in the forums really help us newbies in trying to learn about gear and what can go wrong up there. Weighing the two sides (benefits versus detriments of posting), I personally hope people continue to post and ask questions and speculate about whether A or B or C might have gone wrong.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Posts from members of the dropzone.com community have been used as specific evidence in a court case. The case didn't go before a judge because it settled. But the posts did have a direct impact on the proceedings of the case.

I'm very curious as to how this would happen. The only thing I can think of is if one of the defendants (or plaintiffs) themselves posted on here. If that happened then that statement would probably be allowed as admissible evidence.

Additionally, I could MAYBE see a scenario where a lawyer tried to use forum posts as evidence of some sort of custom and practice of skydivers. I would think most judges would not allow that though, because there's no real evidence of who the posters are, that they're actual skydivers, etc.

But other than the two scenarios above, I'm having a hard time seeing the legal theory that would allow your post in Incidents to be used to prove or disprove anything in trial. I mean, with bad opposing counsel and bad judges, I guess many things are possible.

Turning to the practical side, I could see how posts could affect things by:

1. Making someone think there's a case

2. Educating a lawyer as to the types of questions (s)he should ask. It also might lead them to witnesses to the incident.

Other than that, I can't think of what else.

On the plus side, I think speculation and brainstorming in the forums really help us newbies in trying to learn about gear and what can go wrong up there. Weighing the two sides (benefits versus detriments of posting), I personally hope people continue to post and ask questions and speculate about whether A or B or C might have gone wrong.

Or comments made could give a person not having specific knowledge of certain practices, methods or equipment a clear and quick direction with which to pursue an action.

And from there they could get their own 'expert' to qualify that opinion...


Forums like this are an educational tool, a tool that's sharp on 'both' ends.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Posts from members of the dropzone.com community have been used as specific evidence in a court case. The case didn't go before a judge because it settled. But the posts did have a direct impact on the proceedings of the case.

That case was fucked up by the USPA attorney and the USPA Executive Committee.
The posts partially quoted, taken out of context and/or mis-attributed in the complaint did not in any way shape or form validate claims by the plaintiffs.

The lawyer & EC were the people that screwed up, not people that made posts here or anywhere.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Posts from members of the dropzone.com community have been used as specific evidence in a court case. The case didn't go before a judge because it settled. But the posts did have a direct impact on the proceedings of the case.

That case was fucked up by the USPA attorney and the USPA Executive Committee.
The posts partially quoted, taken out of context and/or mis-attributed in the complaint did not in any way shape or form validate claims by the plaintiffs.
The lawyer & EC were the people that screwed up, not people that made posts here or anywhere.

.

You miss the point.
The posts referred to in the USPA/Skyride documents could have been interpretations of the psychological imbalance of flying fish or translations of the hidden meanings of "Puff the Magic Dragon."
The context or lack thereof, misquotes, validity, whatever aren't germaine to this particular discussion.

Lawyers have indeed used posts from Dropzone.com in their briefs, they have had an affect on the positioning and posturing of parties a legal action regardless of who fu**ed up what, where, or how.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I'm very curious as to how this would happen. The only thing I can think of is if one of the defendants (or plaintiffs) themselves posted on here. If that happened then that statement would probably be allowed as admissible evidence.

Additionally, I could MAYBE see a scenario where a lawyer tried to use forum posts as evidence of some sort of custom and practice of skydivers. I would think most judges would not allow that though, because there's no real evidence of who the posters are, that they're actual skydivers, etc.

But other than the two scenarios above, I'm having a hard time seeing the legal theory that would allow your post in Incidents to be used to prove or disprove anything in trial. I mean, with bad opposing counsel and bad judges, I guess many things are possible.

Turning to the practical side, I could see how posts could affect things by:

1. Making someone think there's a case

2. Educating a lawyer as to the types of questions (s)he should ask. It also might lead them to witnesses to the incident.

Other than that, I can't think of what else.

On the plus side, I think speculation and brainstorming in the forums really help us newbies in trying to learn about gear and what can go wrong up there. Weighing the two sides (benefits versus detriments of posting), I personally hope people continue to post and ask questions and speculate about whether A or B or C might have gone wrong.

Agreed. I can't imagine anything posted by a whuffo, low time jumper, or just somebody chatting about things they know nothing about ever being of consequence, (hurting or helping) a plantiff or defendant.

Inaccurate information should be easily discovered and dismissed by demonstrating the posters lack of expertise and/or getting a true expert's input.

Would any court really let a completely anonymous post sway a decision, without knowing who wrote it or what their credentials are? If so, I'm going to write a post that says Skyride is illegal and needs to be shut down. Should have a major impact on future legal proceeedings right?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[chrismgtis 0]

Quote

If so, I'm going to write a post that says Skyride is illegal and needs to be shut down. Should have a major impact on future legal proceeedings right?

That was funny.

Rodriguez Brother #1614, Muff Brother #4033
Jumped: Twin Otter, Cessna 182, CASA, Helicopter, Caravan

[Skwrl 56]

I'm a lawyer and I use dropzone.com

If I were a plaintiff's lawyer, and I was bringing a negligence suit against a dropzone (for example), I'd use dropzone.com for the following (probably roughly in this order):

(1) It would educate me (a whuffo, presumably) about skydiving, so I would know what a reasonable skydiver, pilot or dropzone would do in a given situation. That would help me understand if, assuming all of the facts are what my client says they are, there's likely a viable negligence claim.

(2) I might also be able to see alternate theories for my case, even if my planned approach won't work. From an incidents thread, I recall a bunch of people speculating on an fatality, saying, "XYZ must have happened....", except that a witness said XYZ didn't happen... But maybe, if I can impeach the credibility of the witness, I can plant the seed in the jury's mind that maybe XYZ DID happen! I don't need 100% proof, I just need to win by the preponderance of evidence, so maybe I'll use the approach of "throw everything I can at the jury and see what sticks". Thanks, speculators!

(3) Remember that skydiving lawsuits aren't as common as, for instance, medical malpractice. Taking a skydiving case would require me (the whuffo plaintiff's lawyer) to find experts to advise me and to testify. Dropzone would help me validate who "experts" are... (If I got a resume from a guy with 500 jumps who wanted to work as a paid expert, I might think "Gosh, that's a lot! He must know what he's doing!", until I jumped on dropzone.com and saw people with 5,000...)

(4) I might be able to identify witnesses that I didn't know about. Thanks for the "I was there and I saw..." posts - it shouldn't be too hard to subpeona you.

(5) If the defendants or their employees get posting here, I might gather information I didn't already have. I might also be able to find contradictions in what they say in (for example) police reports as compared wiht on line statements. Credibility is very important in a lot of personal injury cases, and very few people write their posts on dropzone with an eye to seeing how they'd show up in litigation. Even 100% well meaning posts can generate inconsistencies.

(6) The same is true for witnesses - "You said in the police report it was 2 or 3 seconds, in your dropzone posts it was more like 10 seconds..., understanding that it was under thirty seconds, is it fair to say you don't know precisely how long it was?" People write stuff that looks dumb in retrospect, because they are writing for other skydivers and not with litigation in mind.

(7) I may learn about the dropzone's reputation for safety (or lack thereof). Although that isn't usually directly admissible, I might be able to find a way to get information about the dropzone's reputation in if the dropzone's lawyer "opens the door" by trying to argue it has a favorable reputation...

So, no, there's not likely to be a smoking gun. But it can be incredibly useful.

/Not a litigator.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

And they get paid $300 per hour to troll here!

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

Fine!

Public statement.

If any lawyer wants to quote anything I wrote here - or on the PIA Riggers Froum - they can pay me "Expert Witness' wages.
If they do not pay me, I will send rude letters to the judge requesting that my opinions be inadmissible in court, citing copyright law, infringment of privacy, third party evidence, bla bla bla ....

If I think the lawyer in question is an ugly, repulsive, scum-sucking, low-life, ambulance chaser, I will cheerfully present evidence in court, but my "expert witness" wages will be obscenely expensive!

Robert E Warner
hired by RCMP and Dan Poynter to investigate parachute accidents
quoted in parachute rigging textbooks written by Poynter, Reid and Fradet
FAA Master Parachute Rigger
Strong Tandem Examiner
S/L, IAD and PFF Instructor
6,000 over 32 years experience, on a wide variety of equipment
retired jump pilot
author of manuals for Aviator, Talon 2, Telesis 2, etc.
Canadian Army and German Army paratrooper wings,
etc.

The bottom line is: lawyers may quote my statements here ... IF THEY PAY ME!

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

The bottom line is: lawyers may quote my statements here ... IF THEY PAY ME!

Um, bit of a sticky point there old chap. These posts are essentially made in a public forum, therefore you have no more right to be paid for their usage than you would if you were overheard saying them in the street. Fair use and all that. (Any lawyers feel free to disagree.) You just have to look at the all the dopes who have sunk themselves on Myspace to realise that nothing you post online is privileged or protected by copyright.

There's a way more lucrative angle to this in that people like yourself could be contacted to act as expert witnesses in a suit based on posts made here. Quite a few jumpers have gone that route, with varying results. The most common of these is the destruction of their reputation in the skydiving community.

I hear the money is quite good though.

[mik 2]

Quote

I'm a lawyer and I use dropzone.com

If I were a plaintiff's lawyer, and I was bringing a negligence suit against a dropzone (for example), I'd use dropzone.com for the following (probably roughly in this order):

(1) It would educate me (a whuffo, presumably) about skydiving, so I would know what a reasonable skydiver, pilot or dropzone would do in a given situation. That would help me understand if, assuming all of the facts are what my client says they are, there's likely a viable negligence claim.

(2) I might also be able to see alternate theories for my case, even if my planned approach won't work. From an incidents thread, I recall a bunch of people speculating on an fatality, saying, "XYZ must have happened....", except that a witness said XYZ didn't happen... But maybe, if I can impeach the credibility of the witness, I can plant the seed in the jury's mind that maybe XYZ DID happen! I don't need 100% proof, I just need to win by the preponderance of evidence, so maybe I'll use the approach of "throw everything I can at the jury and see what sticks". Thanks, speculators!

(3) Remember that skydiving lawsuits aren't as common as, for instance, medical malpractice. Taking a skydiving case would require me (the whuffo plaintiff's lawyer) to find experts to advise me and to testify. Dropzone would help me validate who "experts" are... (If I got a resume from a guy with 500 jumps who wanted to work as a paid expert, I might think "Gosh, that's a lot! He must know what he's doing!", until I jumped on dropzone.com and saw people with 5,000...)

(4) I might be able to identify witnesses that I didn't know about. Thanks for the "I was there and I saw..." posts - it shouldn't be too hard to subpeona you.

(5) If the defendants or their employees get posting here, I might gather information I didn't already have. I might also be able to find contradictions in what they say in (for example) police reports as compared wiht on line statements. Credibility is very important in a lot of personal injury cases, and very few people write their posts on dropzone with an eye to seeing how they'd show up in litigation. Even 100% well meaning posts can generate inconsistencies.

(6) The same is true for witnesses - "You said in the police report it was 2 or 3 seconds, in your dropzone posts it was more like 10 seconds..., understanding that it was under thirty seconds, is it fair to say you don't know precisely how long it was?" People write stuff that looks dumb in retrospect, because they are writing for other skydivers and not with litigation in mind.

(7) I may learn about the dropzone's reputation for safety (or lack thereof). Although that isn't usually directly admissible, I might be able to find a way to get information about the dropzone's reputation in if the dropzone's lawyer "opens the door" by trying to argue it has a favorable reputation...

So, no, there's not likely to be a smoking gun. But it can be incredibly useful.

/Not a litigator.

Thank you for taking the time to write an interesting and informative post. It has confirmed my suspicions that individual posts are unlikely to have the weight of an expert witness (as it seems to me some people imply when asking people not to post), but the site can be a useful source of information to, presumably, lawyers working for either side in a case.

It has also made me think about things I had not previously considered - like the discrediting of witnesses.

My takeaway from this is that, given than many incidents have a reasonable degree of debate in the posts (which is often great in educating people about risks etc) then a discussion about the incident is something that is good for the skydiving community.

And I imagine that even if those calling for censorship of comments on incidents are ever succesful in supressing discussion, it would not be too difficult for a lawyer to find other posts on dz.com to support their case.... eg - if there are no posts about whether it is sensible to 'cut' before letting people hop n pop related to a specific incident, I bet it would not be too hard to find a general discussion aabout the pros and cons of doing this on dz.com

But I might think carefully about the words I would use if posting on here if I thought it likely I might be called as a witness to an incident.

Thanks once again for the constructive comments.

***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example

[tombuch 0]

Quote

I'm a lawyer and I use dropzone.com

If I were a plaintiff's lawyer, and I was bringing a negligence suit against a dropzone (for example), I'd use dropzone.com for the following (probably roughly in this order):

Might you also use the site to determine that there isn't a reasonable case?

I've received several calls from lawyers who got my name from this site. In each case they had a client who wanted to bring an action against a drop zone. They identified me from the drop zone site, and choose me as a contact because of my reasoned posts and credentials. They called me to help them better understand the sport, and to help them determine if there was a argument that would carry the case. If the case was weak the lawyer would choose to decline the business, rather than spend hours and dollars on contingency. Of the cases I've been asked about, all but one were very weak, and the phone conversation was enough to convince the lawyer to decline the job. The only incident that I thought had merit was probably handled by another expert.

So yes, lawyers do use the site as part of their research, and that isn't all bad.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Might you also use the site to determine that there isn't a reasonable case?

Yep. I never said it was always a bad thing. The original poster asked why or how a lawyer would use this site. As I mentioned, #1 would probably be evaluation of the case that the client brings you (which may result in a "I don't think litigation is a good option for you" discussion).

Like I said, I'm not a litigator, though.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork