Archway Skydiving Sued

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What I don't agree with about this lawsuit business is that Airtec in named...based on what we think we know about it's operation. I do understand the 'shotgun' approach that lawyers use to rake in the dough. It's their job, yes. It's just suck-ass that the world operates that way.

No, that's not why. This is a long, old thread; but please see my post #25 from back in July, 2011. From that post:

Quote

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.

I also explained why I thought the student and the rigger shared liability, and that I felt that Airtec does not have any liability.

Then if you'll read a little further in the thread, you'll see that Jerry Baumchen complimented my post. And everyone likes Jerry Baumchen. So there.

[billvon 2,391]

>I don't think you'll find too many experienced skydivers that would
>disagree with you regarding THAT statement..

Per the poll a fair number here do.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Sparky, I hate to break this to you and PopsJumper but here it is: When you fail to decide what if any action to take, you are making a decision. The decision to do nothing is still a decision.

Since one wants to argue word definitions and post cliche's as if they are world's truth....
From Webster's:

Definition of DECISION
1
a : the act or process of deciding b : a determination arrived at after consideration : conclusion

You are trying to say that he made a considered effort to do nothing. I don't believe that.

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

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Yes, and the act of the process of deciding if you want to argue semantics is "To pull or not to pull". He unfortunately chose the latter. Himph.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

"To pull or not to pull"

THAT is the question.




You knew that was coming back, didn't you?
Let it be be.

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

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

"To pull or not to pull"

THAT is the question.




You knew that was coming back, didn't you?
Let it be be.

When I find myself in times of trouble...

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

[lopullterri 0]

Quote

IMO, somewhere along the line, riggers need to take responsibility for their work. This is one case in point.

This is my point and my "Axe to Grind", Ms. O'Hara. Do you have ANY idea how much SSK has spent to defend themselves? They had NO liability whatsoever! The rigger, instead of taking responsibility, chose to "spread the wealth", which I see as cowardly. The cost to SSK, Airtec and any other manufacturer WILL get passed on to all of us. Do you not get that?

And removing anything from the scene is tampering with evidence. He did not go out to help..I have seen the photos and believe me, there was no chance or any possible help for this student. He went out there because (in my opinion) he was worried about the rig being in date...at the very least.

And I am appalled at your statement, "Clearly this jumper either had a death wish and changed his mind at the last second when he decided to deploy his main at 800 ft AGL'...first of all, he was out of control, spinning on his back and kicking all the way down, according to eyewitness reports and according to eyewitness reports he likely saw a flash of trees when he pulled. Nothing failed here except the rigger and you have got to be smarter than you post makes you appear to be.

God, people like you make me despair.

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

[billvon 2,391]

>Yes, and the act of the process of deciding if you want to argue semantics is "To pull
>or not to pull". He unfortunately chose the latter.

No, he didn't.

I've taken over 2000 students on AFF jumps and I can guarantee you that not a single one "decided not to pull" - even the ones I had to pull out. They just screw up. They want to pull, they meant to pull, but they screwed up and did not. That's why we have AFF jumpmasters and AAD's. Because some times people screw up.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

No, that's not why. This is a long, old thread; but please see my post #25 from back in July, 2011. From that post:

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.

Quote

I'll buy into that too. IMO, both are applicable...the diligent AND the despicable. Given that, wouldn't it advantageous to make a boilerplate including every known man, woman, child and commercial entity an just submit it with every suit?

Quote

Then if you'll read a little further in the thread, you'll see that Jerry Baumchen complimented my post. And everyone likes Jerry Baumchen. So there.

So, I wasn't accusing you of advocating action against Airtec.

How'd you like that inclusion of 'advocating' counselor? Pretty nifty if I do say so myself.

And yes, everybody loves Jerry. But don't go getting a big head though. Jerry loves everybody, not just you.

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Pops & Andy908,

How about you two take a short time out?

Re: everybody loves Jerry and Jerry loves everybody

You could not be more wrong, on both counts.

Give my ex-wife a call, she might want to discuss your thoughts with you two.



JerryBaumchen

[ufk22 32]

My point is, Cypres is NOT A NECESSARY COMPONENT TO MAKE A SAFE SKYDIVE. IT IS A BACK UP DEVICE.

Quote

USPA Says the it is a necessary component to making a safe student skydive.


If you die because there is something going on with the Cypres whether it was misrouted or failed for some other reason, unlucky you and shame on you for relying on a tertiary computerized back up device to save your life.

No, shame on you for suggesting that this student made a decision to rely on the Cypres. Sensory overload, especially when something else goes wrong (on your back spinning) is not uncommon with students. A cypres is required to be there as a last line of defense for students because we all know this can and does happen,

This is the paradox of skydiving. We do something very dangerous, expose ourselves to a totally unnecesary risk, and then spend our time trying to make it safer.

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Quote

Quote

IMO, somewhere along the line, riggers need to take responsibility for their work. This is one case in point.

This is my point and my "Axe to Grind", Ms. O'Hara. Do you have ANY idea how much SSK has spent to defend themselves? They had NO liability whatsoever! The rigger, instead of taking responsibility, chose to "spread the wealth", which I see as cowardly. The cost to SSK, Airtec and any other manufacturer WILL get passed on to all of us. Do you not get that?

And removing anything from the scene is tampering with evidence. He did not go out to help..I have seen the photos and believe me, there was no chance or any possible help for this student. He went out there because (in my opinion) he was worried about the rig being in date...at the very least.

And I am appalled at your statement, "Clearly this jumper either had a death wish and changed his mind at the last second when he decided to deploy his main at 800 ft AGL'...first of all, he was out of control, spinning on his back and kicking all the way down, according to eyewitness reports and according to eyewitness reports he likely saw a flash of trees when he pulled. Nothing failed here except the rigger and you have got to be smarter than you post makes you appear to be.

God, people like you make me despair.

First off Ms. LOLpullTerry, your axe to grind shows more clearly every time you speak but I guess some people cannot wait to expose the misfortune of others. You apparently are one of those people. Moving on.

I, like you agree that it is unfair that SSK/Airtech were brought into the lawsuit. I don't think they should have had to spend one penny defending themselves. However, if this upsets you, you should direct your anger in the proper direction, to your lawmakers. Instead of looking for another opportunity to spew out at Jason Mark, perhaps consider that attorneys are required to name any and all possible litigants until they have been released by virtue of evidence to show that they do not belong as named defendants. Regardless of what Mr. Mark did or did not do, Airtech was going to be sued as a matter of attorney protocol in order to cover their asses and cover all possibie liability bases. This approach saves them from being sued for malpractice and helps to narrow down the true defendant. Mr. Mark was not "spreading his wealth" as the cause for Airtech being sued. So in response to your comment directed towards me which states "you have got to be smarter than your post makes you appear to be" touche.

Tampering with evidence infers modifying or changing something relating to the scene to cover up or benefit the "guilty party" or falsifying something in order to prove their innocence. Your stretch of the imagination and attempt to convince readers such as myself that Mr. Mark clearly attempted to do this simply by checking the data packing card is comical. He probably should have waited until the coroner arrived to check anything but if you are going to infer someone does a criminal act such as tampering with evidence, you better back it up with better proof than the fact that you "knew what he was thinking". Any judge would laugh at you. Show me how he modified or altered the data card or equipment in some way and you might actually gain some credibility. Otherwise you are just sharpening and grinding that axe more and more with your outlandish suspicions and opinions. You commented on what the rigger "was worried about". Are you his brain? Were you there? How could you possibly with such conviction persuade others to believe that you could possibly know what was going on in the rigger's mind or what he was thinking? Wow! On top of being a crime scene expert you are also a telepathic mindreader!

As far as you being appalled at my statement about the student having a death wish, I have already addressed other posters who opened my mind to the possibility that there may have been other options. The only other options I could conceive of are loss of altitude awareness and I guess if he was spinning on his back and having other equipment issues, those would be contributing factors. Again, I was not there so I am just guessing.

Your blanket statement "Nothing failed here except the rigger" clearly shows your bias against Jason Mark as you cannot acknowledge pr assess ANY fault to the jumper at all which I am sure most people would disagree with.

And... as far as your comment "God people like you make me despair." It seems as though your desperation has been present and all encompassing before you ever met me.

Just my opinion.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[popsjumper 2]

I'll not comment on your entire post. That is all between you and he. But I will comment on this with a personal experience with respect to 'tampering with evidence.

Quote

Tampering with evidence infers modifying or changing something relating to the scene to cover up or benefit the "guilty party" or falsifying something in order to prove their innocence. Your stretch of the imagination and attempt to convince readers such as myself that Mr. Mark clearly attempted to do this simply by checking the data packing card is comical. He probably should have waited until the coroner arrived to check anything....... Any judge would laugh at you....

Now, I am not a legal expert, maybe Andy908 or others could be more specific on just what sonctitutes tampering but here's what happened to me.

There was a fatality on a too-low-to-inflate reserve deployment after a cutaway.

I was second on-site. The main was in in a field across the street in a cow pasture.

I was told by a responsible person at the DZ to take the main out of the field because it was surrounded by cows sniffing around it and we didn't want it to be trampled and destroy any indication of why it got shopped. Reasonable enough, eh?

Well, not so according to the investigators who showed up. I got a thorough ass-reaming and a threat to be arrested for tampering with evidence because I moved the main out of the pasture. There was no discussion on my intent.

Only until one of the local boys showed up and vouched for me did the investigator back off and let me go with the warning to never touch anything at an accident scene.

I'm convinced that the judge would NOT have been laughing at anything at all.

YMMV

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

[sacex250 0]

Quote

My point is, Cypres is NOT A NECESSARY COMPONENT TO MAKE A SAFE SKYDIVE. IT IS A BACK UP DEVICE. If the jumper did what he was trained to do, he would have survived.

What is so complicated about the term "back-up device" to you? A back-up device is something that is supposed to operate in place of a primary system that, for whatever reason, fails to operate correctly.

A net under a high-wire walker is a back-up device. By your argument if a high wire walker falls it doesn't matter to you whether or not the net is set up correctly, you blame the performer for falling.

Just because a skydiver is told not to use an AAD as a primary means of opening a canopy doesn't mean that it's not supposed to work when called upon. In this case, there's even a Federal regulation that required that the AAD be installed correctly and the rigger FAILED in his duty to follow the law. I'd also like to remind you that the rigger was facing criminal charges for his culpability in this fatality, and in my opinion should have been brought up on them.

It makes absolutely no difference to me in this case that the jumper failed to manually deploy a parachute, he paid for his mistake(s) with his life. The issue left to be settled is to what extent the rigger/DZO's actions contributed to this jumper's death. To argue that the rigger is not in any way responsible is ridiculous.

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

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Where did you get your definition of tampering with evidence? I don't have an axe to grind and I'll tell you that going and removing something from an accident scene at the very least looks really fishy. It's stupid to think such an action would not be looked at very closely. There is no logical reason to not wait till the authorities are on the scene.

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Quote

*** To argue that the rigger is not in any way responsible is ridiculous.

You obviously cannot read or are too closed minded to open your eyes to what I wrote. I explained more than once that the rigger should have his ticket pulled and does bear partial responsibility. Why don't you go read what I said before you start flapping your lips in response to what I didn't write. Next...

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

It may have "looked fishy" and may not have been the "best" thing to do but it also does not mean he intentionally tampered with the evidence as LolTerry was trying to insinuate.

I never said the rigger bears no responsibility in this. I just said that what SkyBeerGod mentioned about her axe to grind seems obvious at this point. Again just stating my opinion here.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

And that is a good point and completely acceptable. I agree with you there. But to place full blame and criminal charges on the rigger in my eyes is overkill. Just saying.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

Wow PopsJumper, that is a bummer that he chewed your ass when you were only trying to help. But this supports my argument completely. Just because Mr. Mark went to look at the packing card to see if he packed the reserve or to check on something because he was in a state of panic or shock or concern does not make him a criminal who was intentionally trying to cover up something as LOLterry tried to convince all of us. That would be like coming on to this public forum and stating: That PopsJumper, he is a criminal! Do you know what he did? He went out into that field and picked up that main canopy and I know what he was thinking... he was thinking that he would screw up the whole crime scene and try to conjure a way to cover up the guilty party's actions. Do you see what I mean? LolTerry has no business claiming what that rigger was thinking any more than I have any reason to come on here and conclude that by moving that canopy you were not trying to help out, you were actually committing a felony.

As someone who studied forensic science in college and criminal justice, I understand how important it is to keep the crime scene clean (meaning untampered with). But I am also pointing out the fact that as a rigger, unless someone stopped me or explained that to me under those circumstances, my first action would be to look at that data card to make sure I packed it. Again, I am not saying it is the best thing to do but it also does not show that my intent is to change anything to cover my ass.

Also with regard to the judge laughing, no, you are right this is not a laughing matter. But when you are submitting evidence, you cannot do so by saying that you knew what someone was thinking. That is unfounded and almost like a form of hearsay which is not allowed and yes, if she tried to tell the judge that, he or she would tell her to sit down and shut up.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[billvon 2,391]

>But to place full blame and criminal charges on the rigger in my eyes is overkill.

Full blame - agreed. He bears only partial responsibility. That may include criminal charges.

As a reference: "Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death." As a rigger he certainly had a duty to rig the student's parachute correctly, and was paid to do so. He did not, and that failure was a critical part of the chain of events that led to the death of the student.

Will it rise to that level? I don't know - but it might.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

It may have "looked fishy" and may not have been the "best" thing to do but it also does not mean he intentionally tampered with the evidence as LolTerry was trying to insinuate.

I never said the rigger bears no responsibility in this. I just said that what SkyBeerGod mentioned about her axe to grind seems obvious at this point. Again just stating my opinion here.

I have no idea what your second paragraph is about.

In todays day and time with the way legal issues are handle at the minimum the guy is a moron for walking up to a dead body and touching it for any other reason than to check for a pulse. Look at it this way, had he not touched anything, nothing would be in question. And as I said before, there is absolutely no reason not to wait till the authorities are there.

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi Bill,

Quote

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs

Different states give it different names. I forget what it is exactly called here in Oregon.

Ted Mayfield misrigged a s/l to a pull-out pilot chute resulting in only the pilot chute getting into the air. The result was the death of an 83 yr old man.

Ted did 13 months in the county jail. They threw a lot more charges at him but he pleaded and took the county jail vs more time in one of the state prisons.

One is responsible for one's actions.

JerryBaumchen

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I see exactly what you mean. Innuendo is not a good thing in my book either.

LolTerry has no business claiming what that rigger was thinking any more than I have any reason to...
AND, conversely, anyone claiming what that rigger was thinking, or not thinking at the time would be either guessing, insinuating, extrapolating, deducing, (add your own input here) or just plain attacking, I think.

Quote

...as a rigger, unless someone stopped me or explained that to me under those circumstances, my first action would be to look at that data card to make sure I packed it.

True enough. I have to compare though. In my case it was ignorance. I'm pretty sure what I was thinking at the time (). I am not so sure that the rigger was as ignorant as I was. Maybe he was, maybe not. If not?

Quote

Again, I am not saying it is the best thing to do but it also does not show that my intent is to change anything to cover my ass.

True. I 'm not saying he intended anything one way or another. I have no clue. I see the question raised from one interpretation of a couple of documents presented. Hell, I don't know that the docs aren't complete forgeries. OTOH, I don't know that the rigger in question didn't fully intend to alter things.

Quote

Also with regard to the judge laughing, no, you are right this is not a laughing matter. But when you are submitting evidence, you cannot do so by saying that you knew what someone was thinking.

Doesn't that happen all the time in courts where their is an element of intent involved in supporting a criminal charge? If I don't admit to my intent, then any attempt at proving my intent is bogus? I think courts work differently.

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

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Just because Mr. Mark went to look at the packing card to see if he packed the reserve or to check on something because he was in a state of panic or shock or concern does not make him a criminal who was intentionally trying to cover up something

Someone correct me if I'm wrong (and I might be because I'm just going off memory here) but the DZO was also the rigger, and the only one who worked on any of the student rigs.

If that was the case, he would already have personal, first-hand knowledge of the status of every rig and every repack card in the student fleet. For example, there is only one rigger who works on any of the student or tandem gear where I jump. He does things by the book, everytime when it comes to record keeping. In the event of an incident, he does not need to grab for the repack card to see what it says, or make sure that everything is in order.

I understand that people make mistakes, but you don't find that out until after the fact. If the authorities had removed the repack card and found a discrepency, that might be a mistake which the rigger had no knowledge of. When the rigger makes grab for the repack card out the rig of a dead student, that points directly to the rigger having some knowledge of a potential problem, and that points directly to the rigger putting the rig (or another, or several others) into service with incomplete paperwork, or incomplete rigging work, or both.

Think of the multitude of things a rigger might look at in that scenario. A student has just gone in, and what I would be looking at is the functuionality of the rig. The handles, pins, cutaway and reserve cables, toggles (if applicable) etc. The one thing I know for sure is that the reserve data card had nothing to do with the fatality, and in the face of a dead student, I can't imagine any reason to go looking for it unless you had previous knowledge of a problem or discrepency, and wanted to get to it before someone else did.

[nigel99 143]

Quote

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.

Andy, I very rarely agree with the views of lawyers on product liability. But I think this is spot on.

I do sympathise with riggers (and product designers), we all make mistakes and sometimes they slip through. It is just that riggers and other safety critical occupations need to have fail safes in place.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.