0
stratostar

TX Skydiving firm sued in student's death

Recommended Posts

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Sky-diving-firm-sued-in-student-s-death-2452138.php

Another case of not opening a parachute before impact is going to cost Mr. Boyd time & legal fees to defend the waver. I'm pretty sure he will win in the long run. One interesting note in the story is they (family & lawyer) are blaming an instructor as well for failing the student by not "saving him".....:S>:(B|>:(

Best of luck guys, sorry to see this story.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that the AFFI went below his hard deck till his own AAD fired should blow the argument they are making that the Instructor did nothing to save him.

Or are they arguing that there was some negligence on the part of the Instructor somewhere earkier on the jump.....
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For fuck sake, It wasn't even his first jump. I hope the family goes broke and Steve counter sues



I don't know how these things make it to trial. The student hade made 5 previous solo jumps, and before each jump (I assume) he was told over and over that opening his parachute on time was extremely important, and then he (I assume) proceeded to do so. If he did not, he would not have been passed to the next level.

On the jump in question, he was again told that he would be opening his own parachute The dive flow which included both him tracking away from the instructor and opening his own parachute was taught and reviewed (I assume) multiple times, up to and including, in the aircraft minutes before the jump.

With all this in mind, the student chose to exit the aircraft, and in doing so, accepted responsilbility for his portion of the planned skydive, to include opening his own parachute.

On top of that all, the dive flow was the same one used for every Lv 6 student at this DZ, and is in accordance with the USPA trainging program they are following.

What part of this is negligence, and what part of this is 'skydiving is dangerous'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Gaines West, lead attorney for Williams' family, argued in his opening remarks that the company's instructor, Alex O'Connor, should have intervened to help Williams deploy his parachute.

Judge Ed Denman did not allow video or audio evidence during opening statements Monday and had not decided whether he would admit that evidence during trial."

Well that kind of blows away anyone who argued that Instructors need not concern themselves with being sued.

I don't understand why the judge is even considering dis-allowing video evidence. Hmmmmm.

I wonder does the Instructor have his own lawyer or is he tagged in with the DZ's lawyer?
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
I read through the original incident thread and couldn't find much on the cause of his death. Did his AAD fail? Double Mal?

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. If I was this guys attorney I would argue that the DZ has a duty to ensure that their student equipment is safe.

If the equipment was not the problem, then I would think the waiver would hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is the only case I can think of a suit actually making it to trial... Are there other recent examples that I'm missing?

_Am



Does this one fit the bill?

http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/lodi/2010/01/29/a-jurors-perspective-in-lodi-area-skydiving-trial/
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

I read through the original incident thread and couldn't find much on the cause of his death. Did his AAD fail? Double Mal?

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. If I was this guys attorney I would argue that the DZ has a duty to ensure that their student equipment is safe.

If the equipment was not the problem, then I would think the waiver would hold up.



Incident thread indicated the AAD fired ane the canopy came out but was partially entangled with the jumper (who was spinning on his back). At least that's what I made of it.

Cause of death was blunt force trauma.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't understand why the judge is even considering dis-allowing video evidence. Hmmmmm.



If it shows a real time view of the events, I can't see how he can NOT allow the video to be used. If he doesn't and the DZ loses the case, surely that would be grounds for an appeal...
My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"Gaines West, lead attorney for Williams' family, argued in his opening remarks that the company's instructor, Alex O'Connor, should have intervened to help Williams deploy his parachute.

Judge Ed Denman did not allow video or audio evidence during opening statements Monday and had not decided whether he would admit that evidence during trial."

Well that kind of blows away anyone who argued that Instructors need not concern themselves with being sued.

I don't understand why the judge is even considering dis-allowing video evidence. Hmmmmm.

I wonder does the Instructor have his own lawyer or is he tagged in with the DZ's lawyer?



The video has probably not been authenticated for use as evidence. The court would have to look at it and have expert witnesses testify that this was in fact the video, has not been altered and has been kept safe since the incident from tampering in a chain of evidence type way.

A lawsuit against a drop zone is not a surprising thing at all. Look at the skydivers here that put an incidents thread all over the map. It was the gear, the training, the AAD, the pilot, the instructor, the RSL, the rigger, the...blah, blah, blah...

Now look at a family that knows nothing of skydiving. A loved one dies and everyone from Grandma to their mailman says..."You should sue them".

So now the lawyer does a shotgun approach and sues everyone involved, hoping for a ruling in the family's favor.

No matter how many pages a waiver is. No matter how safe and well run a drop zone is. No matter what steps are taken to prevent a death or injury, lawsuits can still be brought to court. The waiver and the drop zone's operations will probably hold up unless there is a case of true negligence. The drop zone owner will have to spend THOUSANDS of dollars to defend the business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


No matter how many pages a waiver is. No matter how safe and well run a drop zone is. No matter what steps are taken to prevent a death or injury, lawsuits can still be brought to court. The waiver and the drop zone's operations will probably hold up unless there is a case of true negligence. The drop zone owner will have to spend THOUSANDS of dollars to defend the business.



Yes. It's the 'Merican way.

I didn't think about the authentication angle.
Not a lawyer (I have enough enemies already...:D:D:D)
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

The drop zone owner will have to spend THOUSANDS of dollars to defend the business.



I was talking to my home DZ's lawyer about this not too long ago and she put a section into the waiver that states if the skydiver or anyone acting on their behalf does sue the DZ they are required to pay the attoney's fees for the DZ upfront before the law suit. If there was a law suit she stated she would start billing the person in question directly since they agreed to it before jumping. Not sure exactly how this would play out in court but thought it was an interesting addendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Lawyers 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.



And Texas actually did do something about it !
re : http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268436/loser-pays-texas-small-business-wins-stephen-demaura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Lawyers 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.



Looser pays laws take care of this
The lawyers lobby continually fights this type of law
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?>:(
Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FAA regs state that you have to keep AAD's maintained according to manufacturer requirements (right?) So if the AAD was not "airwothy" then this would be neglagence. Yes its a backup device but it the US it must be maintained if its going to be on the reserve system
I am fucking your mom right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The AAD fired. The reserve came out. It's lines entangled with the jumper. Any talk about the AAD being faulty appears to be wrong, at least according to the incident thread.

Be interesting to know what exactly the lawyer is alleging is "gross negligence." That's a pretty high standard. Perhaps it is in his pleadings.

From what is reported in the incident thread this does indeed appear to be nothing but a nuisance lawsuit.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

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