0
mik

Lawyers using Dropzone.com

Recommended Posts

Quote

"I don't think litigation is a good option for you" discussion)..



Somehow, I'm having a hard time accepting that a lawyer would actually let that sentence out of his/her mouth.

He'd probably change the deal from contingency to fee-based...with a retainer up front.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"I don't think litigation is a good option for you" discussion)..



Somehow, I'm having a hard time accepting that a lawyer would actually let that sentence out of his/her mouth.



That frankly surprises me, coming from you, as you strike me as one who usually tends to sensibly resist drinking the kool-aid.

I'm not going to get sucked into some of the other lemmings' robotic lawyer-bashing; but I have a lot of respect for you, which is why I'm posting this at all. Anyhow, in my quarter-century practicing, I've said that to prospective clients many, many, many, many times. And my experience is the rule, not the exception.


Quote

He'd probably change the deal from contingency to fee-based...with a retainer up front.


Not 100% unheard of, but still extremely unlikely in any kind of personal injury and/or wrongful death case in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I'm a lawyer and I use dropzone.com :P

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 why dont you tell us how you talk to lawyers and tried to be that guy trying to put a dropzone and dzo owner out of business who has done so much for the sport which you even did your training at. Dont you think we went through enough.We must be so lucky having you in this sport. Dont worry skydivers if things go wrong Tom will be there in court to make sure you pay!!!!!!!!
Track high, Pull LOW!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Tom why dont you tell us how you talk to lawyers and tried to be that guy trying to put a dropzone and dzo owner out of business who has done so much for the sport which you even did your training at. Dont you think we went through enough.We must be so lucky having you in this sport. Dont worry skydivers if things go wrong Tom will be there in court to make sure you pay!!!!!!!!



For anybody that cares, I think this thread is being hijacked to another take on Duanesburg Skydiving, a drop zone just outside of Albany, New York, that is owned by Bob Rawlins. I did not do any of my training there, although I was an active jumper and instructor at the DZ many years ago.

Last year Mr. Rawlins flew a load in a Cessna 182 from which an observer, who was not wearing a parachute, committed suicide by jumping from the open door just after a tandem pair left the aircraft. (The thread from that accident is available at: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3232310;#3232310. A second thread is at http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3234974;page=unread#unread.

Mr. Rawlins held only a private pilot license, and a commercial certificate is required for this kind of operation. The observer was sitting on the floor adjacent to the open door, and was not equipped with a parachute of any kind. The observer was not on board to participate in skydiving but according to witnesses had stated his intent was simply take pictures of the countryside, and thus his participation clearly did not meet the standard of “engaging in sport parachuting” required to use the floor as a seat. While those violations were obvious, there were even more violations uncovered through the FAA investigation.

Mr Rawlins should not have been surprised by the FAA enforcement action that followed. In 1994 he had his private pilot certificate suspended for flying jumpers without a commercial certificate (NTSB Order EA-4583). Certainly he knew better.

The NTSB, FAA, and USPA have been working together to improve industry safety, and especially safety related to pilots and flight operations. In fact, NTSB issued a Special Investigation Report on the Safety of Parachute Jump Operations on September 16, 2008, and compelled USPA to take an aggressive stand to head off increased regulations. We must learn to work together as an industry, and join with the FAA and NTSB to eliminate obvious violations. A “circle the wagons” approach when a rouge operator is identified is not in the interest of the industry, and is disrespectful toward the general public from which we draw our customers.

The FAA called me as an expert witness to testify as to the reputation of Duanesburg Skydiving, and testify as to industry standards. The case was set for trial before the NTSB on May 13-14, 2009, but it was settled about a month before trial with the revocation of Mr. Rawlins pilot certificate.

Let there be no mistake, what Mr. Rawlins did was a violation of FAA regulations, it was part of a continuing series of violations that had extended over many years, and he had been warned well in advance. The revocation of his certificate should make clear that the FAA will not tolerate private pilots flying jumpers (other than in very, very, very limited situations). USPA has also taken a stand here and rejected the use of private pilots flying jumpers in a “Gearing Up” column by USPA Executive Director Ed Scott in the October 2008 Parachutist.

It is my very strongly held belief that jump pilots should hold a commercial certificate, and the law supports that position. I do not dispute the flying skills of Mr. Rawlins, but FAA regulations specify a commercial certificate is required for this kind of operation. Ignoring this (and the other violations) following a fatality that drew such wide public scrutiny would have established a precedent that other DZ’s could have used to allow less experienced private pilots to fly jumpers. That would have placed other jumpers at risk, and would have been harmful to the industry.

I have a continuing interest in improving safety within the sport, and will not tolerate operators that put others at risk, or that threaten to weaken important regulations and standards that keep us safe. I am especially intolerant of violations that affect students and the general public, and in the case cited above, a student was on board the aircraft and deserved an operation that met federal standards. The violations in this case were flagrant, and the potential harm to industry safety was great. I stand proud of my willingness to work with the FAA to bring action against a rouge operation and a pilot who obviously knew better. And although I harbor no ill will toward Mr. Rawlins, I am pleased that he had his certificate revoked.
Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Information posted here is mostly anonymous and all hearsay. Moreover, only witnesses accepted by the court as qualified expert witnesses may offer opinions on causation in accidents--and even that is limited by a number of rules, not the least of which is an examination of the scientific methodology the expert used to arrive at such conclusions, and the foundational facts on which his (or her) assumptions are made. The bottom line is that it is the nature of observers and experts alike to publicly speculate on the causes and lessons of any transportation or high-risk sports accident; but it is highly unlikely that those comments will ever reach a judge or jury under the courts' evidentiary gatekeeping. With that said, I wouldn't offer up "I was there and this is what I saw" posts unless you feel like receiving a subpoena. In any event, if you need a lawyer, there are always these guys (me) in Albuquerque: www.dropzonelawyers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you just opened a 5 year old thread.

That being said, two weeks ago I spent a week in a courtroom watching a skydiving trial. This website and facebook were quoted heavily and used as exhibits in the court case and were not at all helpful to the skydivers. I remember thinking, "some out of town internet poster, making insulting comments online behind their keyboard, is making small talk BS on the internet, is making the locals suffer."

It was amazing to see how lawyers could bring the online posts into the trial by making witnesses comment on them.

Therefore I disagree with your anonymous and hearsay comment, I just saw the judge admit the evidence in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I attended the same trial as tdog.

It was surprising to me that on one hand, "hearsay" evidence is disallowed; e.g. you cannot ask a witness what someone else said to him/her, because that is hearsay. i.e. if you want to bring it into court, you must subpoena the other party.

But on the other hand, I am certain I heard them admit pages from a website blog into evidence, but the blogger was not called as a witness, (although he sat in court as a spectator for a couple days).
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdog

I think you just opened a 5 year old thread.

That being said, two weeks ago I spent a week in a courtroom watching a skydiving trial. This website and facebook were quoted heavily and used as exhibits in the court case and were not at all helpful to the skydivers. I remember thinking, "some out of town internet poster, making insulting comments online behind their keyboard, is making small talk BS on the internet, is making the locals suffer."

It was amazing to see how lawyers could bring the online posts into the trial by making witnesses comment on them.

Therefore I disagree with your anonymous and hearsay comment, I just saw the judge admit the evidence in.



This is not surprising considering the media thinks twitter is a reliable source.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0