Archway Skydiving Sued

[JohnRich 4]

In the companion thread by this same name, there are a variety of opinions about who is responsible for a student fatality, in which the student died without pulling his reserve handle, the AAD fired, but the reserve failed to deploy because the AAD was installed incorrectly.

I've created a poll here to try and see which opinions are most favored, by those who have read that thread and are knowledgeable about the circumstances.

That thread is here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4137046;

Multiple votes allowed.

There are three categories of responsibility: The student, the rigger, and the AAD manufacturer. And within each of those three categories, there are three levels of responsibility: Completely responsible, partially responsible, and not responsible.

This breakdown will allow you to vote to assign the blame, or lack thereof, that you think the various parties deserve, and by how much. You should vote three times, once each for the student, rigger and AAD manufacturer.

Let's see who is in the majority here.

Yikes, I haven't even finished editting to clean up grammatical errors, and there's already 15 votes! This is going to be a hot one.

Oh, and the purpose here is strictly to allow a vote on opinions. The discussion should NOT be fragmented by starting another thread here. It should remain in the original thread to keep it all in one place. So please vote only, and then go back to the other thread for discussion. Thank you.

[yoink 321]

I'm surprised by the low % for the rigger being completely responsible, but I guess that people may have had the same confusion I did:

To my mind, both the student and rigger completely failed in their duty, but each duty was different so both are completely responsible.

I wonder if people aren't putting 'partial' as an answer because they think the 'completely' ones are mutually exclusive?

[airtwardo 6]

I don't think two people can each be 100% responsible for a single event.

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

[jsreznor 0]

Quote

To my mind, both the student and rigger completely failed in their duty, but each duty was different so both are completely responsible.

We can never know if the rigger's reserve job was any good since it was never used, hence my answer of partially.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I don't think two people can each be 100% responsible for a single event.

Yes they can, under the legal doctrines of either "joint liability", or "joint and several liability".

Here's a synopsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

I don't think two people can each be 100% responsible for a single event.

Yes they can, under the legal doctrines of either "joint liability", or "joint and several liability".

Here's a synopsis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_and_several_liability

What's the law got to do with reality?

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

[yoink 321]

Quote

I don't think two people can each be 100% responsible for a single event.

That was the confusion I was having - The way I looked at it was that the rigger is responsible for packing the rig correctly. He didn't do that and is completely responsible for that aspect.

The student didn't pull their reserve - something they were completely responsible for.

Both factors are the root cause of the accident - remove either and there probably wouldn't have been an issue, but each has a different responsibility.

[DiverMike 5]

I like your poll and would somehow like to take it a step further. Imagine the student's life is worth one dollar to his heirs for his untimely death that could have been prevented if he never took up skydiving. IMHO the student is responsible for 95 cents for not pulling and the rigger for a nickel for misrouting.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I like your poll and would somehow like to take it a step further. Imagine the student's life is worth one dollar to his heirs for his untimely death that could have been prevented if he never took up skydiving. IMHO the student is responsible for 95 cents for not pulling and the rigger for a nickel for misrouting.

When I created this poll, I expected that the results would be mostly in the catgories of "student partially responsible" and "rigger partially responsible". But then there's a whole world of debate in that result, as to what proportion each one is responsible for. It could be 90%/10%, 50/50, 10/90, or anything else. So, yes, there's a lot of range in there, and room for pleny of debate about how your proposed dollar should be divided. But you can only have so many poll options before things become too confusing or meaningless, so I tried to keep it fairly simple. Good observation though.

[DiverMike 5]

Yes it would get confusing. I forgot to include Airtec also. My revised estimate would be .95 jumper, .049999 rigger, .000001 Airtec for designing a lifesaving device that could be installed incorrectly.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[piisfish 135]

Quote

Yes it would get confusing. I forgot to include Airtec also. My revised estimate would be .95 jumper, .049999 rigger, .000001 Airtec for designing a lifesaving device that could be installed incorrectly.

I can't understand why Airtec (or any other AAD manufacturer) could have any kind of liability in case it has been misinstalled...
For you, would they also have some responsability if the loop had been routed correctly but the device was not switched ON ?? (designing a device that could be used despite not being turned ON, they should have an "auto-switch-ON as soon as you touch the rig ? )

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

Yes it would get confusing. I forgot to include Airtec also. My revised estimate would be .95 jumper, .049999 rigger, .000001 Airtec for designing a lifesaving device that could be installed incorrectly.

I can't understand why Airtec (or any other AAD manufacturer) could have any kind of liability in case it has been misinstalled...
For you, would they also have some responsability if the loop had been routed correctly but the device was not switched ON ?? (designing a device that could be used despite not being turned ON, they should have an "auto-switch-ON as soon as you touch the rig ? )

+1

Airtec is off the hook for this one in my book. I'd say about 95% student, 5% rigger as well.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[psf 1]

I don't know if all DZ's do it, but we were videotaped stating we knew the risks. The student did not pull. End of story. The rest is just added backups that should NEVER be relied on. The rigger messed up, ok, but if there is ANY other responsiblity here it should be to the student program that verify's to the student they are indeed using properly maintained equipment. And I do not place any responsibility on anyone other then the student. Now, if the RESERVE was pulled, and it didn't work then yes the blame goes elsewhere. IMHO

ignorance is not bliss

[jacketsdb23 45]

The reserve can fail just as a main can. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. We all know the risks.

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[billvon 2,395]

>if there is ANY other responsiblity here it should be to the student program
>And I do not place any responsibility on anyone other then the student.

Bit of a conflict there.

>Now, if the RESERVE was pulled, and it didn't work then yes the blame goes elsewhere.

Why? If the student didn't pull his main and pulled the reserve instead, and had a reserve mal due to the rigger forgetting a molar strap, he screwed up; students are supposed to open their main parachutes first. If the student opened his main in a poor body position, had a mal and then cutaway and opened his reserve, again he screwed up. In both cases - and in this one as well - he COULD have saved himself by doing the right thing, but due to a rigger's mistake he died.

[sacex250 0]

Quote

The student did not pull. End of story. The rest is just added backups that should NEVER be relied on.

Then why purchase/install/require them?

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[sacex250 0]

Let me guess, you've never taken a statistics class, have you?

It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Let me guess, you've never taken a statistics class, have you?

Let ME guess...you've never jumped out of an airplane...have you?

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

[labrys 0]

Quote

Then why purchase/install/require them?

Because there's a ridiculously small chance they might help.

Hmm... should I purchase/install/require something that costs $1500 and has a .001 percent chance of saving my life?

Doesn't make sense on the surface, I guess... but when I'm 99.999 percent behind the curve, I'd look pretty silly hoping my 52" LCD widescreen TV might pull my ass out of the shredder.

ETA: Oh, and BTW. AADs are not required in the US.

Owned by Remi #?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Let me guess, you've never taken a statistics class, have you?

Let ME guess....you have and that makes you an expert.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I'd look pretty silly hoping my 52" LCD widescreen TV might pull my ass out of the shredder.

You have a 52"?
ENVY

It would need to have a warning gizmo on it to tell ya if it was plugged in or not.

Quote

ETA: Oh, and BTW. AADs are not required in the US.

Well, think of the students!

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[lopullterri 0]

Quote

Where's the option for 'waiting for disclosure of the evidence'?

The only thing anyone has to go on here is a couple of new articles.

Who examined the rig and determined it was installed wrong?

Was the examination performed at the scene or did the cops confiscate the rig and throw it around first?

Was the cutter examined for problems and obstructions?

Did the computer confirm the activation, self-check and firing or was there a malfunction?

Is there video of the jump showing the student spinning on his back for 5k feet doing absolutely nothing to same himself?

There was an AAD no-deploy investigation published a few months ago and they had to put the guillotine under a microscope to see that there was damage to the blade. Conclusion: there was a foreign object of some kind blocking the cutter when it fired preventing the loop from being cut.

The coroner's inquest and the FAA report are complete. Do some home work (Upon arrival, the DZO/Rigger walked up to the coroner and handed him the reserve packing data card from the rig that was on the deceased student and stated, "The AAD in the container is not the one listed on the card. I switched AAD's earlier this year." Hmmm...so he REMOVED evidence from the body?)

Again, not the only thing to go on. Just what I chose to put out there, but now you are all making me weary. (Possibility of insults, threats and guns being pulled...be damned. There is more where this came from).

Examined by (I believe) the Coroner and the FAA (including a certificated rigger).

Examined at the scene AFTER the DZO tampered with it...not the cops. Then taken into custody by (I believe) the coroner.

The cutter had fired. The container did not open. The loop was intact and NOT routed through the cutter. There was no obstruction...the loop was intact and undamaged.

The computer confirmed that the device activated at the appropriate altitude.

No video that was RELEASED. Again, remember...the DZ had the ability of manipulating this if it existed...though since this was not a first jump, I doubt that there WAS video. There were witnesses.

I saw that report also..it verifies that when packing a reserve one must prevent contamination of the packing area as much as is feasible. I see reserves packed in the middle of busy hangers...something that makes me cringe. Jet fuel and other contaminants can be tracked in, along with gravel and sand. Unless specifically requested and it is a rush, our process is to pack in a clean and freshly vacuumed area.

Now...do not ask me to verify the info because it is all available to anyone who cares to look and request...I am not your secretary...and I do NOT give up private sources...

~"I am not afraid. I was born to do this"~

[skyflower_bloom 0]

Yes, I can see that point, and did vote that student and rigger each are part responsible because I saw it as being mutually exclusive, as you point out. That said, reading your posts and others, I rather agree that the rigger and student both failed completely in their respective jobs so could have also put that both failed completely.

(and I voted no to Airtec, as I don't think Airtec should be responsible though I can see how others could see things differently, mostly legally/non-jumpers..)

I feel awful for everyone involved and don't think that any party *tried* to screw up, and clearly the student's family and the dropzone and Airtec and the rigger are all in a bad situation, one that court *won't* fix, so I don't condone battling it out as a way to right the situation in our sport, but I have to acknowledge that while there is personal responsibility, we do indeed expect students to f*** up sometimes and that is why we require *properly installed* AADs, appropriate conservative wingloadings, RSLs, specific FJC and instuctor/coach jumps and training, etc.

I think it's a copout to say that the student was completely at fault without acknowledging the rigger role, since in my limited time in the sport (this is my second season), reading incident threads, we have seen everything from 100% preventable mistakes to something no one could have ever foreseen, from newbies to the best of the best injured and killed. No one in this sport is invincible and I do think that we have to acknowledge that students do need more protection.

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Gandhi

[Andy9o8 0]

(Note: I'm not trying to advocate anything or defend (or attack) any party. I'm just trying to be a voice of reason.)

I think your approach is the correct one. I view the student and the rigger sharing joint liability. I realize the mis-rigging of the AAD didn't cause a death (the no-pull did), it only caused the AAD to fail to prevent it.

But in liability law, you have to take into consideration anticipatable human conduct, including doing the wrong thing, or failing to do the right thing (there are "human factors" experts that do that for a living in designing products). And a student jumper freezing is a frequent enough occurrence that it's anticipatable. That's why students used to be (and some still are) trained on static lines/ IAD, and that's why AADs on student freefall jumps are a good idea.

As a DZ, you either have AADs on your student rigs, or you don't. If you do, and you rent them to students, make sure the AADs are rigged properly - because like it or not, "personal responsibility" or not, students sometimes freeze. As a rigger, you either pack "student rigs" (or an unlicensed student's personal rig) with AADs, or you don't. If you do, make sure the goddamn closing loop is through the cutter, for Christ's sake; that's about as fundamental as it gets.

IM(P)O, Airtec has little or no liability, even under the "strict liability" standard in products liability law. The only theory of liability against Airtec has already been stated (so relax, guys, I'm not "educating" anyone...) - some kind of sensor to detect when there's no closing loop installed. I've practiced a lot of product liability law; and without getting extensively into the reasons, IMO that theory would probably fail in most US courts.

Last point: why are the various "fringe" defendants (like the airport, or the pilot, etc.) being sued? Well, it's not because of the "deep pockets" theory, or to squeeze 'em for a few extra bucks, as so many people seem to (derisively) presume. It's because the lawyers need to protect themselves from being sued for malpractice for failing to sue a party that should have been sued. Trust me, if the plaintiff's attorney didn't sue the fringe defendants, the target defendants would join them as "third-party defendants" anyway, for exactly the same reason: because failure to do so could be malpractice. So a properly diligent lawyer really has little choice: you have to sue (or if you're a defendant, join) everyone involved, then take discovery and depositions, and then let the court, on "motions for summary judgment", decide who gets out of the case before trial and who must proceed to trial.

[airtwardo 6]

some kind of sensor to detect when there's no closing loop installed. I've practiced a lot of product liability law; and without getting extensively into the reasons, IMO that theory would probably fail in most US courts.