obelixtim 149 #51 January 11, 2012 Quotehttp://www.khou.com/news/local/Brazoria-County-Family-of-man-killed-while-skydiving-settles-suit-with-Skydive-Spaceland-137055423.html QuoteBRAZORIA COUNTY, Texas – The family of a man who died while skydiving in Brazoria County has settled a civil case with Skydive Spaceland. Rex Williams, 59, died in 2008 when he failed to pull his parachute in time while skydiving with the company in Rosharon. Williams had five previous solo jumps. The details of the settlement were not released. Thats interesting....does that mean they withdrew their action, or did the DZ actually pay out some money.... It sounds to me that "settled" actually means they pulled out,My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 149 #52 January 11, 2012 QuoteQuotePrivacy these days, is almost a pipe dream.... Who said anything about privacy. It's all about choosing your words wisely for an internet searching asshole, to be found or be ranked on page 25. Did you Google Ms. Gibbs? In that case I wanted posts found on page one for her and her buddies to see or anyone else when researching her bullshit. So I choose to not use the dropzone's name in this thread, so when people in that area are searching for a place to go skydive this thread or my post are not on page one in regards to that operation that might make it look bad to unknowing public.... that was the point, along with if your an instructor or staff on a dz that is involved in pending legal action, so your posts and video don't come back to bite you or your friends in the ass, kind of like posting IMC violation videos when a door flies off an airplane at a well known dz and AC. What I meant by privacy is that these days, almost anything can be accessed. As far as choosing your words carefully, while an admirable aim, you are still at the mercy of anyone who chooses to edit anything you post to make it into something completely different to what you intended. The news media have been doing this for years.... The only sure way to make sure that doesn't happen is to post or say nothing at all....ever. Whatever happened to free speech?. I'm very glad I don't live in a country where fear of frivolous litigation controls everyones life. Land of the free and home of the brave?. Yeah......right.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 278 #53 January 11, 2012 Quote has settled a civil case with Skydive Spaceland. Hope that means "Ok, fine, we'll refund your last jump." Instead of relatives suing DZ's, wouldn't it be funny if it worked the other way around with excessive lawsuits after a fatality? We'd sue spouses for letting the person jump, or sue parents for having a kid who screwed up so badly that day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #54 January 11, 2012 QuoteQuotehttp://www.khou.com/news/local/Brazoria-County-Family-of-man-killed-while-skydiving-settles-suit-with-Skydive-Spaceland-137055423.html QuoteBRAZORIA COUNTY, Texas – The family of a man who died while skydiving in Brazoria County has settled a civil case with Skydive Spaceland. Rex Williams, 59, died in 2008 when he failed to pull his parachute in time while skydiving with the company in Rosharon. Williams had five previous solo jumps. The details of the settlement were not released. Thats interesting....does that mean they withdrew their action, or did the DZ actually pay out some money.... It sounds to me that "settled" actually means they pulled out, "The details of the settlement were not released" implies a financial settlement in exchange for withdrawal of the lawsuit. What's not disclosed is the terms, e.g., amount, any other conditions, who will pay it, etc. Confidential settlements of civil lawsuits are fairly common these days, to avoid specific defendants, companies and/or their insurance carriers from being seen as ripe "target defendants" who will pay (rather than fight) if they (or their policy-holders) are sued. Sometimes plaintiffs' attorneys want it to be confidential too - not just to facilitate the settlement of a case; but if they're settling for a relatively modest sum, they don't want to get a reputation as a "lightweight". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #55 January 11, 2012 QuoteIt sounds to me that "settled" actually means they pulled out I'm quite sure they knew their case wasn't that strong and just settled out of court. Damn shame, the Law Firm took 45% of the famlies recovery money, and Steve is out what ever the settlement/Lawyer's fees were. The whole thing that burns me up, is what happened didn't have anything to do with Steve.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 149 #56 January 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.khou.com/news/local/Brazoria-County-Family-of-man-killed-while-skydiving-settles-suit-with-Skydive-Spaceland-137055423.html QuoteBRAZORIA COUNTY, Texas – The family of a man who died while skydiving in Brazoria County has settled a civil case with Skydive Spaceland. Rex Williams, 59, died in 2008 when he failed to pull his parachute in time while skydiving with the company in Rosharon. Williams had five previous solo jumps. The details of the settlement were not released. Thats interesting....does that mean they withdrew their action, or did the DZ actually pay out some money.... It sounds to me that "settled" actually means they pulled out, "The details of the settlement were not released" implies a financial settlement in exchange for withdrawal of the lawsuit. What's not disclosed is the terms, e.g., amount, any other conditions, who will pay it, etc. Confidential settlements of civil lawsuits are fairly common these days, to avoid specific defendants, companies and/or their insurance carriers from being seen as ripe "target defendants" who will pay (rather than fight) if they (or their policy-holders) are sued. Sometimes plaintiffs' attorneys want it to be confidential too - not just to facilitate the settlement of a case; but if they're settling for a relatively modest sum, they don't want to get a reputation as a "lightweight". I get the feeling the DZO prolly came out on the right side of the ledger here, especially if the story was along the lines of what was reported . It didn't seem to me they had a strong case at all. I hope that was the case, although there are never any "winners" in a situation like this.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #57 January 11, 2012 QuoteConfidential settlements of civil lawsuits are fairly common these days, to avoid specific defendants, companies and/or their insurance carriers from being seen as ripe "target defendants" who will pay (rather than fight) if they (or their policy-holders) are sued. The simple act of "settling" makes them prime targets...no need for the disclosure of the details. "Hey! They sued and the defendant "settled" without a fight. Let's do the same and see how much WE can get!" QuoteSometimes plaintiffs' attorneys want it to be confidential too - not just to facilitate the settlement of a case; but if they're settling for a relatively modest sum, they don't want to get a reputation as a "lightweight". I assume it's also common the other way around...keep the large settlement private so the leeches of the world don't know how much the plaintiff got?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 149 #58 January 11, 2012 QuoteIt sounds to me that "settled" actually means they pulled out I'm quite sure they knew their case wasn't that strong and just settled out of court. Damn shame, the Law Firm took 45% of the famlies recovery money, and Steve is out what ever the settlement/Lawyer's fees were. The whole thing that burns me up, is what happened didn't have anything to do with Steve. If it was a case of loser pays all costs, the plaintiffs could well have pulled the pin early if it was obvious their chances of success were nil. The settlement might well have been in favour of the defendent, especiallly if he indicated he'd fight it tooth and nail. I hope that was the case.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamWirtz2001 0 #59 January 11, 2012 QuoteLawyers should be fined for every time they sue someone which doesn't make it to a certain stage of the process. There has to be some way to get away from the 'SUE EVERYONE!' mentality. There are rules for that already. If the case is deemed "frivolous," or baseless, the defendants can to a petition for fees/sanctions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamWirtz2001 0 #60 January 11, 2012 Quote Quote If his AAD was not on or failed or was out of maintenance, I would argue there is some negligence on the part of his instructors and the DZ. So if an AAD failed, you would want to sue the instructor? What part of "this is a back up device only. It can, and has failed" do you not understand? For one, I'm merely being devil's advocate. I don't think there was any negligence, especially after someone pointed out that it fired and he became tangled. Sounds to me like he was tumbling at deployment of the reserve. So I would think there is no negligence here. My point was that if the AAD was merely a defective pos because the DZ did not maintain them but represented that they in fact had working AAD's, there would then be a possibility for some liability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamWirtz2001 0 #61 January 11, 2012 QuoteYou and Adam, please don't jump with me. Ever. Thanks. I hope you guys aren't serious. Is it because I'm trying to offer insight as to what the "victim's" argument would be? Or because you think I don't know how an AAD works? Trust me I do, I'm a mechanical engineer and a lawyer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,792 #62 January 11, 2012 >So... there is not way to get an out of date cypress in your container legaly? Sure. Get it repacked while the AAD is in date, then let it go out of date. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fallcoholic 0 #63 January 11, 2012 I think the issue is that you seem to continually keep talking about a defective AAD, when clearly that was not the issue in this particular incident. His AAD fired and the reserve deployed, but became tangled with the jumper. Seems like the typical actions of a lot of lawyer's to try to find a scenario in which they would be justified in suing someone, rather than looking at the facts of the case. Just my opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamWirtz2001 0 #64 January 11, 2012 Well, my original post stated that I did not know what the cause of the accident was. Therefore, I was merely proposing hypotheticals as to where a lawyer would argue liability was based. Mostly in response to davelepka asking "What part of this is negligence, and what part of this is 'skydiving is dangerous'?” People need to learn to not be so hypersensitive. Reminds me of a great line I heard recently. "Offense is not given, it's only taken." :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cutaway68 4 #65 January 11, 2012 Quote Quote and getting anything posted on this looney bin used in a court of law for legal proceedings? In the past dz.com posts have been used in court. With that said, when I posted this link last night, I used a title for the post, however after about 3 minutes, I decided to edit it to the current title..... Why? For one thing I wanted to help the dz by keeping the Google ranking low via the keywords I used. I also choose my words very carefully when posting in some topics, such as this one, for that same reason as well as because we all know some scumbag dirt ball lawyer's flunky will be searching for any little bullshit they can find to drag into court. I would always advise other posters to think carefully about how and what they say, here, on facebook, posting videos on utube, and other places where ones words and video can be used by those forces who seek to harm our industry. For an example of what I mean, Google Kimberly Gibbs Citizens for Quiet Skies..... Page one #7 took less then a week to land there. Like I said, I word my posts very carefully for many reasons. I am thinking about making a video of myself taking full responsibility for my skydiving and post it on my Facebook page before I make another skydive. What I have in mind, is me talking to the camera and telling all of my friends and family that I understand the risks involved with the sport, and do not want any legal action taken if something goes wrong. This way it will be out in the open for all to see. The only thing that I can see that would be bad is an instance like occurred in Belgium. Anyone have any suggestions on the wording? Anyone advise against this? Why? Feel free to PM me. Don't Pull Low... Unless You ARE!!! The pessimist says, "It can't get any worse than this." The optimist says, "Sure, it can." Be fun, have safe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #66 January 11, 2012 QuoteWell, my original post stated that I did not know what the cause of the accident was. Therefore, I was merely proposing hypotheticals as to where a lawyer would argue liability was based. Mostly in response to davelepka asking "What part of this is negligence, and what part of this is 'skydiving is dangerous'?” People need to learn to not be so hypersensitive. Reminds me of a great line I heard recently. "Offense is not given, it's only taken." :) The problem is the lawyers make no effort to actually find the truth. It's all about stirring up shit to cloud the issue and get paid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,792 #67 January 12, 2012 >The problem is the lawyers make no effort to actually find the truth. Some do, some don't. Like everyone else out there, some are good, some aren't so good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dqpacker 7 #68 January 12, 2012 QuoteI think the issue is that you seem to continually keep talking about a defective AAD, when clearly that was not the issue in this particular incident. His AAD fired and the reserve deployed, but became tangled with the jumper. Seems like the typical actions of a lot of lawyer's to try to find a scenario in which they would be justified in suing someone, rather than looking at the facts of the case. Just my opinion. at least there's one newbie in here that has his head on his shoulders. and i don't think you're a mechanical engineer or a lawyer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 149 #69 January 12, 2012 QuoteWell, my original post stated that I did not know what the cause of the accident was. Therefore, I was merely proposing hypotheticals as to where a lawyer would argue liability was based. Mostly in response to davelepka asking "What part of this is negligence, and what part of this is 'skydiving is dangerous'?” People need to learn to not be so hypersensitive. Reminds me of a great line I heard recently. "Offense is not given, it's only taken." :) Had you read and understood the original posts relating to this incident, I think the events as they unfolded would have been pretty clear to you. Any "offense taken" you detected prolly came from people who have been down this road quite a few times over many years, and have found that people, and skydivers in particular, find such lawsuits fairly tiresome. They impact on all of us. Especially when people, or their advocates, refuse to take ownership/responsibility for their own destiny, and instead try to lay blame on anyone they perceive to be in the firing line, and who they think is good for a quick buck. Skydiving isn't tiddlywinks. Shit can happen, and I can tell you for sure, its not something that any skydiver enjoys. Accidents and injuries impact on everyone involved. As do lawsuits which have no basis. As you may have gathered, lawyers, and ambulance chasers in particular, are not exactly flavour of the month amongst the skydiving community. Any cowboy operations that kill people regularly through wilful negligence or practise, are fairly soon identified and outed by the skydiving community, and any that are successfully prosecuted in such a case, deserve all the sanctions that come their way. Just saying.......My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamWirtz2001 0 #70 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteI think the issue is that you seem to continually keep talking about a defective AAD, when clearly that was not the issue in this particular incident. His AAD fired and the reserve deployed, but became tangled with the jumper. Seems like the typical actions of a lot of lawyer's to try to find a scenario in which they would be justified in suing someone, rather than looking at the facts of the case. Just my opinion. at least there's one newbie in here that has his head on his shoulders. and i don't think you're a mechanical engineer or a lawyer. *yawn* Who cares if you believe it? And I'm not too worried if a stranger thinks I have my head on straight. I jump safely and am always open to learning. Maybe others would too if others didn't spend their time pouncing on words people say in an attempt to offer objective viewpoints. I thought this was a thread about a lawsuit? Why is it jacked into a thread about why people don't like lawyers? I bet there are plenty of websites focused on just that topic for you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #71 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteLawyers should be fined for every time they sue someone which doesn't make it to a certain stage of the process. There has to be some way to get away from the 'SUE EVERYONE!' mentality. There are rules for that already. If the case is deemed "frivolous," or baseless, the defendants can to a petition for fees/sanctions. The owner of a dz in Nevada once told me that he was spending about $10.00/tandem defending legal action. Although he had (has) never been successfully been sued this demonstrates that no, in fact there are not effective rules for that. The bar for frivolous lawsuits in most states is set far to high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamWirtz2001 0 #72 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteLawyers should be fined for every time they sue someone which doesn't make it to a certain stage of the process. There has to be some way to get away from the 'SUE EVERYONE!' mentality. There are rules for that already. If the case is deemed "frivolous," or baseless, the defendants can to a petition for fees/sanctions. The owner of a dz in Nevada once told me that he was spending about $10.00/tandem defending legal action. Although he had (has) never been successfully been sued this demonstrates that no, in fact there are not effective rules for that. The bar for frivolous lawsuits in most states is set far to high. I agree. The rules are there, but far from perfect. The constitution is mostly to blame for that, since it guarantees your day in court. The reality is, litigation is a cost of doing almost any business. This is because people are human, make mistakes, can't resolve their own issues, and are greedy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rifleman 66 #73 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuote Especially when people, or their advocates, refuse to take ownership/responsibility for their own destiny, and instead try to lay blame on anyone they perceive to be in the firing line, and who they think is good for a quick buck. Skydiving isn't tiddlywinks. QFT - the first thing my instructor on my S/L FJC said to all the students was something along the lines of 'This is not a sport for people who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. If you can't or won't accept personal responsibility for what you do, leave now and we'll sort out a refund.' Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #75 January 12, 2012 Quote>So... there is not way to get an out of date cypress in your container legaly? Sure. Get it repacked while the AAD is in date, then let it go out of date. Specifically, if you neglect the re-pack cycle for long enough, yes, it can be out of date at the next scheduled maintenance interval....+6 months. Put it in legally, let it go with no re-packs until you pass the scheduled maintenance date by 6 months you'd have an "illegal" AAD in your rig. You'd have a hard time convincing a jury that somebody else was negligent if you had a problem. From the Cypres2 Manual: The maintenance has to be performed 4 and 8 years after the original date of manufacture. The earliest possible date for the CYPRES 2 maintenance is 6 months early, the latest 6 months after the month of manufacture. A delayed maintenance has no advantage. It does not save any cost as the Lifetime Warranty remains the same. It’s smart to choose a suitable time during the 13 month window for sending the unit in for maintenance, rather than waiting until the last possible moment, or until the beginning of the next season.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
