0
stratostar

TX Skydiving firm sued in student's death

Recommended Posts

http://www.uspa.org/AboutUSPA/Donations/tabid/316/Default.aspx

Quote

In 1991, USPA established the Airport Access and Defense Fund (AAD Fund) to further the efforts of the association and its members to maintain or gain equal access to airspace and federally funded airports in the U.S. The funds may also be used by the association in efforts to prevent or remove government actions or taxation that affect skydiving and its related activities. Limited financial assistance may be provided to offset a portion of a member's legal expenses in a qualifying concern.


you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


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.



I am intrigued by this idea. I have been quite explicit in my discussions with my family members that I am a big boy and understand the risks of skydiving and would not want anybody sued if I died. I have had that converstaion more than once with my family members. I also sign the waiver (of course). I would like to think that is sufficient, as my family members are generally not the type who would sue anybody and they have participated in "waivered" activities themselves but grief is a powerful thing.

I have not thought about videotaping a statement. I would be interested to hear more feedback from others on this. Does it offer more protection for the sport I love and the people involved in it who are my friends?
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


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.



I am intrigued by this idea. I have been quite explicit in my discussions with my family members that I am a big boy and understand the risks of skydiving and would not want anybody sued if I died. I have had that converstaion more than once with my family members. I also sign the waiver (of course). I would like to think that is sufficient, as my family members are generally not the type who would sue anybody and they have participated in "waivered" activities themselves but grief is a powerful thing.

I have not thought about videotaping a statement. I would be interested to hear more feedback from others on this. Does it offer more protection for the sport I love and the people involved in it who are my friends?



This definitely would hurt your estates ability to sue the DZ if you were to have an accident. However, I can imagine in some jurisdictions, the video would not be admissible.

Each state has various rules relating to your last will and testament. A video will is similar to a holographic will, which is not recognized in many states (like here in Illinois). If you really want to lock in the waiver, put a clause in your will to that effect. Dedicate an entire article in your will that says, it is part of your final wishes that your estate be barred from pursuing any and all claims against any drop zone or persons that may have been the proximate cause of your death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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.



If an AFFI or Coach falls below their appropriate pull altitude without pulling & while chasing a student, an argument can be made that they are negligent. An AFFI or Coach pulling in view of a student is a strong signal to the student to pull.
Staying around in freefall may indicate to the student that 'everything is ok'.

Giving hero status to someone that goes down to AAD fire altitude to 'save' a student is bunk.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

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.



If an AFFI or Coach falls below their appropriate pull altitude without pulling & while chasing a student, an argument can be made that they are negligent. An AFFI or Coach pulling in view of a student is a strong signal to the student to pull.
Staying around in freefall may indicate to the student that 'everything is ok'.

Giving hero status to someone that goes down to AAD fire altitude to 'save' a student is bunk.

.



the instructor landed a 2 out. he pulled his own main, just too close to aad activation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I have not thought about videotaping a statement. I would be interested to hear more feedback from others on this. Does it offer more protection for the sport I love and the people involved in it who are my friends?



A personal recording may carry some weight (I'm not an attorney), and many DZ's do videotape waivers. When you manifest for the first time at Skydive Elsinore, you are videotaped while reading aloud, the last paragraph of the waiver, and then videotaped as you sign the waiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for getting sucked low, opinions can differ. Does it show a "bad" or "negligent" instructor, or just one who screwed up once? I've known a couple apparently decent instructors in my region let themselves get low (and get a 2 out) over the years. But standards locally probably are lower than at some US mega-DZ.

The instructor pulling can indeed be a great signal to a student to pull. Maybe that works great if facing each other, but if the student is already struggling with a main pull, he's focused on that, maybe turning or tumbling, and may not even notice an instructor pulling.

So for a situation like the one that started the thread, a timely pull by the instructor is not so much trying to help the student as officially abandoning the student as per the rules, to save the instructor.

Getting sucked low, despite definitely being a screwup, could actually play well for a court -- "attempting to the last moment to save the student, despite the rules."


Edit:
Here we sort of get at the definition of heroism. If you charge the machine gun nest alone, you're probably an idiot. Unless you actually destroy it singlehandedly, in which case you're a hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easy!

In practically all civilized countries: You sue and loose: you have to pay the other party's legal cost. You sue, and win: the other party will have to pay your cost too.

Pretty effective, if you ask me.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If an AFFI or Coach falls below their appropriate pull altitude without pulling & while chasing a student, an argument can be made that they are negligent. An AFFI or Coach pulling in view of a student is a strong signal to the student to pull.
Staying around in freefall may indicate to the student that 'everything is ok'.



That might be true in some circumstances, such as a student who has lost altitude awareness and is making no attempt to open a parachute. In the case of a student who is trying, and failing, to open a parachute, I think the angle that it 'may' send the wrong message is incorrect. The student already knows that it's time to open a parachute, and the instructor is making an effort to assist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Easy!
In practically all civilized countries: You sue and loose: you have to pay the other party's legal cost. You sue, and win: the other party will have to pay your cost too.
Pretty effective, if you ask me.


So, imagine this:

Poor Guy buys a toaster at Target. When he goes home, plugs the toaster in, it blows up, seriously injuring him.

Poor Guy finds a Crap Lawyer to file a lawsuit against Rich Company, who made the toaster. Poor Guy doesn't know that Crap Lawyer is crappy -- Crap Lawyer talks a good game.

Rich Company hires Awesome Lawyer to defend the lawsuit. Awesome Lawyer kicks Crap Lawyer's ass in court 'cause, well, he's awesome and the other guy is crappy.

Poor Guy not only loses his case, isn't compensated for his injury, but he is now saddled with six-figures in attorneys' fees that Rich Company spent to defend itself. The rest of his life is ruined, 'cause whatever he earns above the basics needed to feed and shelter himself is going to be garnished by Rich Company.

If you're Poor Guy, does the possibility of this outcome make you a lot less likely to sue? If so, is that a good or bad thing?

If you think a good thing, then by all means, a loser pays system is a good thing. If you think a bad thing, then the decision is not so easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your example of the "Poor Guy vs Rich Company" is exactly how our system is set up here in Canada and in Austria, Australia and a number of other countries (loser pays). There is always a compromise in life and that is one of them.

In the US you have dumb asses spilling hot coffee in their lap while in the drive through and they get $10M. People who sue their doctor because the appendectomy they needed had the incision left-to-right instead of right-to-left. Costs $50K to defend the frivolous suit but settle for $20K just to make it go away even though you did nothing wrong. Dr. insurance premiums go up.

A prime example of how the USPA deals with this.... only $50K in 3rd party insurance. They admit if they had the $2M coverage like Canada has for CSPA, it would attract all the lawyer flies who sue for fun in the US.

I like our set up. I keeps all the scum at bay and if you are a poor person and you find a lawyer, the lawyer must have some honest ability to see it is a winnable case because he would more than likely loose out if he could not be paid. We have the king of class actions lawyers here in Canada. He takes all kinds of class action suits. He offers no charges at all when you register, nothing, no bill at all. All he does is take somewhere I'm guessing like 50% of the setlement if he wins:)

Check out how many he has on the go right now. Lawyers, gotta love em Clicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you're Poor Guy, does the possibility of this outcome make you a lot less likely to sue?


Quote



Makes it a lot less likely I'll be eatin' any toast! :)



Well, let's face it. It's an explosive situation and not one for any jelly-headed, white-bread lawyer that fails to butter up the jury.




>:(
Damn...now I'm hungry.
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

Your example of the "Poor Guy vs Rich Company" is exactly how our system is set up here in Canada and in Austria, Australia and a number of other countries (loser pays). There is always a compromise in life and that is one of them.


I agree. The two warring values are "preventing frivolous law suits" versus "assuring that poor people have a venue for valid claims". I think everyone can agree that these are both good things. And I think it's reasonable to choose the first value over the second. My point really is that it is also reasonable to choose the second value over the first.

Quote

In the US you have dumb asses spilling hot coffee in their lap while in the drive through and they get $10M.


While this case is often cited for runaway lawsuits, the actual facts of the case are a less outrageous than the soundbites make it out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

You still may come down on the side of McDonald's, but I think the facts show that it is at least reasonable to think that McDonald's had some responsibility. So did the plaintiff (and in fact, the jury found that she was 20% in the wrong).

Also, her judgment was for a total of $640,000, not $10M.

Quote

I keeps all the scum at bay and if you are a poor person and you find a lawyer, the lawyer must have some honest ability to see it is a winnable case because he would more than likely loose out if he could not be paid.


The lawyer would also have to think about who he is going up against. The reason we have lawyers is because good lawyers can be very persuasive. So even if the case is good, it can be a very tough row to hoe when going against some very good lawyers with a lot of resources. In a loser-pays system, there is the added disincentive of having the rest of your life ruined if you lose.

There is also the flip side -- it makes it much easier for rich people to harass poor people.

Again, it's a question of competing values. I'm honestly not trying to say one is better than the other -- I lean towards making sure poor people have a venue to address their grievances, but I totally see how one could go the other way. My point is just that it's not so black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi ghost,

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/...nald%27s_Restaurants



Disclaimer: I believe that this dz should not have been the subject of a lawsuit, for many reasons.

Thanks for bringing up some of the truth about the infamous MacDonald's coffee lawsuit.

It may be because my son is an attorney, but IMO the vast majority of commenters about the MacDonald's lawsuit have not a clue regarding the facts.

I have seen the HBO film HOT COFFEE. A lot of truthful info there.

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Again, it's a question of competing values. I'm honestly not trying to say one is better than the other -- I lean towards making sure poor people have a venue to address their grievances, but I totally see how one could go the other way. My point is just that it's not so black and white.



The issue of a 'loser pays' system is simple to solve. The loser should have to pay the legal fees of the winner, but those legal fees should be limited to a 'reasonable' amount.

The idea with 'loser pays' isn't to provide a winfall for the winners (they just won, that's their winfall) it's to discouge frivilous lawsuits. So you the courts were to assign a 'value' to legal services, and then have an independent auditor (at the expense of the loser) make sure the legal fees submitted are 'appropriate', then you have your solution. It discourages frivilous lawsuits, and prevents Joe Public from being saddled with the bill from a $1000/hr corporate attorney.

In the case of Joe Public suing John Average, the loser may end up covering the winners legal fees in full. In the case of Joe Public suing McDonalds, McDonalds would still be on the hook for the balance of their $1000/hr attorney's fees, but that's the chance they take hiring a guy who charges $1000/hr. At least if the $1000/hr guy comes through Mickey D's will only be on the hook for $800-ish/hour.

In terms of skydiving lawsuits, if a DZ hires an 'avearge' priced lawyer, and they prevail in the suit, their legal fees might be covered in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Poor Guy should've checked out Crap Lawyer before hiring him.


That would certainly be prudent of him. The problem is, it's not always easy to tell good lawyers from bad. What do you go by?

Win-loss record? That helps to some degree, but maybe this guy just had a string of cases where the facts were very much against his client, so he lost them all. Conversely, maybe he was going up against an even crappier lawyer.

The lawyer's apparent command of the law? Almost any lawyer worth his salt can make a pronouncement sound authoritative. Unless you actually know that area of the law, it's hard to tell that he's not giving you the full story.

Recommendations? Those are often based on outcome -- my lawyer got me $2.1 million. Okay, but maybe you had a really obvious and easy case that a fifth grader could have won.

State Bar complaints? That a person has none is good, but definitely not indicative of quality.

So, while I fully agree that someone should check out lawyers before hiring them, it's often a difficult thing to do if you're not a lawyer yourself (and sometimes even then).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi ghost,

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/...nald%27s_Restaurants



Disclaimer: I believe that this dz should not have been the subject of a lawsuit, for many reasons.

Thanks for bringing up some of the truth about the infamous MacDonald's coffee lawsuit.

It may be because my son is an attorney, but IMO the vast majority of commenters about the MacDonald's lawsuit have not a clue regarding the facts.

I have seen the HBO film HOT COFFEE. A lot of truthful info there.

JerryBaumchen



Yes. FWIW, here is a thumbnail about the correct facts of the McDonalds case (not the mythical ones that people believe, and repeat):

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4022449;search_string=mcdonald%27s%20coffee;#4022449

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Again, it's a question of competing values. I'm honestly not trying to say one is better than the other -- I lean towards making sure poor people have a venue to address their grievances, but I totally see how one could go the other way. My point is just that it's not so black and white.



The issue of a 'loser pays' system is simple to solve. The loser should have to pay the legal fees of the winner, but those legal fees should be limited to a 'reasonable' amount.

The idea with 'loser pays' isn't to provide a winfall for the winners (they just won, that's their winfall) it's to discouge frivilous lawsuits. So you the courts were to assign a 'value' to legal services, and then have an independent auditor (at the expense of the loser) make sure the legal fees submitted are 'appropriate', then you have your solution. It discourages frivilous lawsuits, and prevents Joe Public from being saddled with the bill from a $1000/hr corporate attorney.

In the case of Joe Public suing John Average, the loser may end up covering the winners legal fees in full. In the case of Joe Public suing McDonalds, McDonalds would still be on the hook for the balance of their $1000/hr attorney's fees, but that's the chance they take hiring a guy who charges $1000/hr. At least if the $1000/hr guy comes through Mickey D's will only be on the hook for $800-ish/hour.

In terms of skydiving lawsuits, if a DZ hires an 'avearge' priced lawyer, and they prevail in the suit, their legal fees might be covered in full.



Who ya gonna get to write that into law?...the lawyers?:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The issue of a 'loser pays' system is simple to solve. The loser should have to pay the legal fees of the winner, but those legal fees should be limited to a 'reasonable' amount.

. . .

In the case of Joe Public suing McDonalds, McDonalds would still be on the hook for the balance of their $1000/hr attorney's fees, but that's the chance they take hiring a guy who charges $1000/hr. At least if the $1000/hr guy comes through Mickey D's will only be on the hook for $800-ish/hour.



So what you're proposing is loser-pays, but only up to a certain amount per hour.

While I agree that this limits the cost to the loser (and thereby decreases the deterrent to frivolous lawsuits by that amount), it also still remains a significant concern for the potential loser.

It is very possible, especially for cases that are fact-intensive, to reach 1000 legitimate hours of billable time for a case that goes to trial. Even at the reduced rate of $200 per hour that you propose, that's $200,000. That could still be enough to ruin the rest of your life. (Think how much money you clear each year after taxes, rent, and food. Divide that into $200,000 + annual interest. That's how many years you will have no money for any extras. In California, interest on judgments is 10% per year. So if you don't pay more than $20,000 per year on a $200,000 judgment, you will never pay it off.)

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