rantoul lawsuit

[skydivr000 0]

__________IN REPLY TO________________________
Then (truthfully) why are so many businesses named in the lawsuit, Gary?
______________________________________________

I honestly do not know. I have no idea why lawyers name so many businesses or why they do half the things they do. But also keep in mind that not being party to the actual case. There is a lot that I don't know.

With respect to the rest of your post. I agree 110%.

Gary

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

.... that is easily the most heartless thing i have ever heard anyone say in my life.

Agreed. Not only that, but I'm shocked at who it came from. I've never seen such an exhibition of bad taste.

Bad taste is defined by the actions of the litigants against Rod, and I can't bring myself to buy into the sympathy angle used to make their case.

Some years back a friend of mine was killed by being in a flight operation area without prior coordination with the pilot. The bottom line was that he fucked up and died, and the pilot and the mother of the deceased hugged each other in tears at the funeral. There was no blamestorming or litigation.

In this case it is every bit as clear that it was a case of death by misadventure, where the deceased was in an area devoted to aircraft operations and died as a result. It's a shame and all that, but the bottom line is that he had no business whatsoever being where he was when he was struck.

By the time I was done searching for his arm (we never did find it - most likely a coyote made off with it) I didn't have much sympathy for his misfortune, and seeing what it did to the staff of the helicopter operation did away with my last vestiges of concern.

If the posts by his brother in law shortly thereafter had demonstrated acceptance of the full responsibility he took by going where he was forbidden by law to go (check the regs), I might have felt a modicum of sympathy. There was, however, a public exercise of denial of the first order, and I am not okay with that.

That it has come to the point of civil action is nothing short of evil, and defense of the decision to litigate in this case is as repugnant as would be someone trying to explain why they think rape is really not so bad.

Anyone who thinks that any good can come of the suit is misinformed. No "truth" will come out as a result, and only further destruction can ensue.

The result of Tim's actions was unintended but predictable; the civil action being pursued now is purely mercenary and without any saving graces.

If his memory is to be honored, it should not by by engaging in despicable actions in his name and thus befouling it.


BSBD,

Winsor

[lawrocket 3]

Why do lawyers name a number of people to a lawsuit? Several reasons.

1) You aren't sure who is as fault. If a cop has a list of suspects, they talk to everyone to narrow it down. Lawyers can't really do this without a lawsuit. Ethical lawyers will dismiss entities (hopefully for a waiver of costs if the defendant is willing) once the information determines that they can't be faulted. Why the hell would an attorney want to spend time and money on something he knows won't do any good? On top of that, if the lawyer finds out that these other guys are to blame and he didn't name them, then the liable parties might escape.

2) Pragmatism. One of the (un)fortunate things about our system is that is someone is wronged by a bunch of people, he can be made whole by any one of them. So, if two people ar 50/50 responsible, and one of them is broke and in jail, then the other guy can pay 100 percent of it, and go after the other wrongdoer. The law chooses that a wrongdoer will take the hit over the innocent party.

These are but a couple.

I won't comment on the veracity of the suit short of saying that with the information I've got it's an attempt to get some cash. I can say nothing of its merits.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Michele 1]

Quote

1) You aren't sure who is as fault. If a cop has a list of suspects, they talk to everyone to narrow it down. Lawyers can't really do this without a lawsuit. Ethical lawyers will dismiss entities (hopefully for a waiver of costs if the defendant is willing) once the information determines that they can't be faulted. Why the hell would an attorney want to spend time and money on something he knows won't do any good? On top of that, if the lawyer finds out that these other guys are to blame and he didn't name them, then the liable parties might escape.

Agreed in theory. Here, though, and in this particular, albeit I don't know the details at all...(I am making large SWAGS heree...)supposing that they are indeed naming the fuel manufacturer is nothing short of ridiculous. There was no issue with the fuel (that would have been apparent with the FAA invdestigation), or perhaps naming the farmer who allowed his cornfield to be used while growing crops too high or something. Then it simply becomes messy, and a deliberate attempt to throw whatever they can against the wall and see what sticks...in the process harming many who may not have even been remotely connected, let alone liable, in the suit...perhaps in an attempt to garner "go away money", perhaps in an honest search, from the litigants' perspective, for the truth.

I maintain that if the litigants' position is truly and honestly to find out the truth, more will come from not suing than from suing.

I don't know the details of the case, other than what has been detailed here on DZ.com...and while there are some very interesting allegations from all sides, there is not yet enough for me to draw any conclusion, and it is, in fact, not my place to do so.

Just my .02...and thanks, as always, Jerry, for outlining a legal perspective.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[lawrocket 3]

On this one you have a point. Many attorneys toss everything to the wall and see what sticks. This is unfortunate, particularly considering how many people face a lawsuit when there was no purpose for them to be involved.

Suing the fuel producer seems ludicrous to me. However, there is a legal reason to sue farmer under invitee liability (a common law duty to keep people on your property free from foreseeable risks) but it does not seem like this is genuine.

On the whole, I agree with you. And I believe that much of this is an attempt to find pockets.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[flyangel2 2]

Quote

On the whole, I agree with you. And I believe that much of this is an attempt to find pockets.

Well said. I think that's the bottom line.

Now, let's sit back and think, why is the City of Rantoul being named? Ya think that the city is going to want the skydivers back if they have to pay out to the lawsuit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it cost money to defend one's self in court? Maybe there are so many named because some of them will just do a settlement, and not bother going to court.

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[billvon 2,384]

>Why the hell would an attorney want to spend time and money on
>something he knows won't do any good?

Because even non-responsible parties can often be coerced to settle for some moderate amount by using the threat of a court battle. I've seen it happen many times.

>Suing the fuel producer seems ludicrous to me.

I am no longer suprised by such things. Square One was once sued because the packing data card in the deceased's rig had a Square One logo on it. They didn't make, maintain, repair or indeed have any contact with the rig, and had nothing at all to do with the jump he died on - but there was that packing data card, so they got named in the suit. I wouldn't have been suprised if they had named Adidas, Hanes and Fruit of the Loom in the same suit.

[lawrocket 3]

And these are the attorneys who will continue to toil without good cause.

Many attorneys just don't get it. Plaintiffs firms, if working on contingency, are concerned with efficiency. How can they get the most bang for the buck.

Attorneys causing parties to settle for some small amount to avoid a court battle are disfavored. In fact, they are despised by their peers

Attorneys like that, short of getting the pat on the back, end up facing grueling litigation against those that defend. Most attorneys, in fact, get very motivatedin the effort to defend their clients against shysters.

You are right, bill. Many attorneys practice law this way. I've defended doctors who should have been dismissed by a plaintiff's counsel and were not, simply because plaintiff's counsel wanted "control." I gave him control. - of 35 separate and distinct interrogatories to answer from 6 different doctors and two entity defendants. Yeah, I flooded him with discovery. It's easier to ask 280 questions than it is to answer them, and a whole lot cheaper.

Hopefully, the sham defendants will teach the plaintiff a lesson about whom to sue.

It is a shame when people practice like that, though. In private, most attorneys will agree.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

You aren't sure who is as fault. If a cop has a list of suspects

Nope, those guys don't think that at all. There is no suspicion, just deep pockets.

"Joint and several liability" (for others reading this) is where you sue 10 people/companies. They assign liability. Everybody is broke but the deep-pockets company who is assigned 1% of the blame. However, the company picks up 99% of the financial burden because everyone else is broke.

They are hoping for "go away" money from the city, etc.

Quote

Ethical lawyers will dismiss entities..

My ex-g/f worked for the biggest pers injury firm in Florida. Everyone of those guys made over 300K a year, a few over $2M. They had their own doctors and coached people on what to say(lie) and fake.

I doubt you will find a huge number of "ethical" personal injury attorneys.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

My ex-g/f worked for the biggest pers injury firm in Florida. Everyone of those guys made over 300K a year, a few over $2M. They had their own doctors and coached people on what to say(lie) and fake.

I once read an article how much the liability lawsuit system in the US costs your economy compared to countries where it is much more difficult to suit and/or there are "no fault" compensation schemes.

Can't remember the detail, but the numbers were staggering. An American once told me that most politicians know this system is no good, but most of the people on Capitol Hill are lawyers.... so no chance of any change....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Jib 0]

Quote

I once read an article how much the liability lawsuit system in the US costs your economy compared to countries where it is much more difficult to suit and/or there are "no fault" compensation schemes.

Can't remember the detail, but the numbers were staggering. An American once told me that most politicians know this system is no good, but most of the people on Capitol Hill are lawyers.... so no chance of any change....

No-fault sux! In Florida, it makes the chiropractors rich and that's about it.

You also have to consider that without lawsuits companies would be free to sell dangerous products to save a few bucks and also whether it's a good idea for the government to take care of injured people or the people who caused the injuries.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[mikkey 0]

Quote

You also have to consider that without lawsuits companies would be free to sell dangerous products to save a few bucks

I do not agree. I have lived in countries where it is difficult to suit and/or there were "no fault" schemes for certain areas like medical treatment, traffic accidents etc. Products were in general not more dangerous. Reason being that there are other laws and (technical) standards that can be applied in regard to making companies responsible for breach of safety. Both financially (fines) and by making managers personally responsible.

The biggest difference I see is that you do not find these stupid "stickers" and warnings everywhere. Do you think putting large stickers on parachutes and containers telling you skydiving is dangerous makes the sport more safe? Do you think a sticker on a plastic bag stops a 3 year old from putting the plastic bag over its head? A lot of money spend on "product safety" in the US is not to make the product more safe, it is spend to stop lawsuits - big difference.

I remember many years ago being involved in exporting products from Europe to the US - product cost were 10% higher for this market due to higher product liability insurance - the consumer pays in the end for this. The tax payer pays for the cost of the court system occupied by this.

I live in Autralia now where things are moving towards the US mentality of suing for everything. Insurance costs for professional indemnity is going through the roof, but products and facilities are not safer because of this. I prefer the European system by far. In most countries you can suit for negligence -but the "bar" is higher (accidents do happen and we as individuals have to take some responsibility ourselves), the amount of money is capped and frivolous lawsuits can backfire easier. That is a far better and cheaper system for all.

We had a case here in Australia a couple of years ago where a guy got himself drunk at the beach and jumped head first into the water from the shore line and broke his neck. He won a major payout from the city because there were not enough warning signs not to dive into the water from the shore line...

There are too many cases where you can suit even if you act irresponsible and stupid. It is different if you e.g. buy an electronic product and its electrocutes you because it is build in a faulty manner. In this case you should (and can in most countries) be able to suit. It is a question of how you set up the system.

A friend of mine worked for a company that produced medical equipment. They were sued in the US when a patient died in the ER. The company's product was present in the room where the person died, but had not been used on that person. In the end they had to pay compensation anyway.....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mr2mk1g 10]

The US legal system has gone overboard. But this is not really the best place to have a long discussion on over litigious societys.

There's a spin off thread here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=708563;#708563

[skydivr000 0]

Post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.... that is easily the most heartless thing i have ever heard anyone say in my life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Agreed. Not only that, but I'm shocked at who it came from. I've never seen such an exhibition of bad taste.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bad taste is defined by the actions of the litigants against Rod, and I can't bring myself to buy into the sympathy angle used to make their case.

Some years back a friend of mine was killed by being in a flight operation area without prior coordination with the pilot. The bottom line was that he fucked up and died, and the pilot and the mother of the deceased hugged each other in tears at the funeral. There was no blamestorming or litigation.

In this case it is every bit as clear that it was a case of death by misadventure, where the deceased was in an area devoted to aircraft operations and died as a result. It's a shame and all that, but the bottom line is that he had no business whatsoever being where he was when he was struck.

By the time I was done searching for his arm (we never did find it - most likely a coyote made off with it) I didn't have much sympathy for his misfortune, and seeing what it did to the staff of the helicopter operation did away with my last vestiges of concern.

If the posts by his brother in law shortly thereafter had demonstrated acceptance of the full responsibility he took by going where he was forbidden by law to go (check the regs), I might have felt a modicum of sympathy. There was, however, a public exercise of denial of the first order, and I am not okay with that.

That it has come to the point of civil action is nothing short of evil, and defense of the decision to litigate in this case is as repugnant as would be someone trying to explain why they think rape is really not so bad.

Anyone who thinks that any good can come of the suit is misinformed. No "truth" will come out as a result, and only further destruction can ensue.

The result of Tim's actions was unintended but predictable; the civil action being pursued now is purely mercenary and without any saving graces.

If his memory is to be honored, it should not by by engaging in despicable actions in his name and thus befouling it.


BSBD,

Winsor


I am not about to engage in a character debate with you [deleted]. What you clearly fail to understand that Tim is not and was not the only indivdual present at the accident. Why are you so helll-bent on attacking in individual that is not here to defend his reputation. Or that your style? Granted, if Tim had not been standing there, it would not have happened. In addition, had Rod initiated a right hand turn a split second later it would not have happened either. Lets face it. You have your OPINIONS and I have my VIDEO. Unless you have FACTS that can be substantiated please refrain from posting anymore of your [deleted] replies.

Edited for personal attacks. Again.

[wildblue 4]

I'm all for brutal honesty, I'm just really surprised at the value you put on this person's life. I can even understand having no sympathy - what I can't understand is that fact that you would wish the helicopter back before this man's life. Would you make the same statemnet about Dwain? Wish that railing he affected and those people he traumatized be made whole rather than have him alive?

Back to the issue at hand - does anyone agree that if the story of him talking to Rod and getting the ok to stand there is true - should someone be held legally responsible? Everyone is assuming he's lying, and that this guy sprung out of the corn and surprised him. I don't really know what version is true, I wasn't there. The 'jumping out of the corn' bit is starting to seem a little hookey to me though.

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[winsor 186]

Granted, if Tim had not been standing there, it would not have happened

Unless you have FACTS that can be substantiated please refrain from posting

[Brodes 0]

I did law for a bit here in australia, and 'Skydiving is dangerous: Do so at your own risk' and etc. signs really dont have much of a bearing in a liability trial. The insurance/legal system got out of hand just after the US one did, but its settled down a bit now.

[winsor 186]

Quote

Granted, if Tim had not been standing there, it would not have happened

Unless you have FACTS that can be substantiated please refrain from posting

Supplementary comment: If Tim was merely hoist with his own petard, that would be a simple tragedy.

Unfortunately, he chose a means of inadvertent suicide that meant pissing in the soup for everyone involved, in both an immediate and a long term basis.

The fact that his family has seen fit to use his demise as an excuse to engage in truly despicable actions is just icing on the cake.

Personally I would just as soon he had been arrested and the video used to ensure he drew jail time. Thus, he would still be alive and hopefully convince nobody else to engage in such behavior.


BSBD,

Winsor

[gweeks 1]

Gary,

Don't worry about Winsor. His failure to value a human life more than the use of a machine indicates a warped and depraved sense of morality. Every time he writes something it will be even more crass and ugly than before (e.g. saying that defending litigation is just as bad as defending rape -- get real!). Unfortunately there are a few others who share his point of view. They have come to conclusions based on imperfect information and partial facts. That's what humans do. Fortunately most people are sensible and have control over their emotions. They realize that the conclusions they reach may be wrong and therefore don't spout off such hateful bull shit.

This must be a tough time for you, and it sucks that you have to go through it. C and I both have you in our thoughts, and we're looking forward to the next time we can jump and party together.

-Gregor

[billvon 2,384]

Gary, you have every right to post here. Indeed, since you have more information than most posters here about the incident, your view is that much more valid. However:

-Please don't engage in personal attacks, even if people here are callous (and some people here are indeed callous, unfortunately.) It's one thing to say "I think your actions/thoughts/conclusions are wrong"; quite another to say "You have no character."

-Often on this forum you will see people trying to figure out what people who have been seriously injured or killed did wrong, or whether their actions were wise, foolish, dangerous etc. That's (usually) not an attempt to show disrespect to the person who was killed. It's part of the purpose of this forum, which is to discuss skydiving issues and learn from them.

After John O'Hara, a very close friend of mine, was killed in a freefall collision (a collision that was his fault) I got really angry when anyone said that he might have been at fault. I actually knew he _was_ at fault; I had been on the dive and saw what happened just before the collision, and I saw the tape from his camera afterwards. It took me a while to understand that people weren't attacking _him_ but rather what he did; another jumper lost a leg as a result, and they were trying to figure out how to avoid that in the future.

[skydivr000 0]

Thanks for your insight Bill. I stated from the beginning that I did not want to debate the issue. I also stated I did not want to have to deal with ignorance. I have been providing information and answering questions that I have been able to answer. All was going well and no problems were created until WINSOR posted. His verbal attacks are biased and callous and are personal attacks against someone not here to defend himself. Right is right, wrong is wrong, black is black and white is white. If my wording of Winsor having no character is wrong, then to the entire forum, "I apologize". But I will not sit by and allow the personal attacks on my deceased brother-in-law continue unanswered. ANYONE that knew Tim, knew what kind of person he was. His integrity, his moral character, his respect for policies and rules, and his overall kindness were unmatched. Anyone that knew him will attest to that. Unfortunately not many that knew him read this forum and even less have ANY TYPE of first hand knowledge of this no-less then tragic accident. If Winsor wants to continue the personal attacks, I will respond. Otherwise, please ask him to take his opinion-based views over to rec.dot where he is revered. The primary reason I am not and will not post on that forum with respect to this issue is because of such individuals. I only hope that you don't feel as though this is to harsh of a post to allow. In addition, if I thought that Tim was 100% at fault. This post would not be occuring because I would be the first to say Tim screwed up. However, in this case, that is not true.

[billvon 2,384]

>I only hope that you don't feel as though this is to harsh of a post to
> allow.

No, thanks for the reply. Your descriptions of the incident have been enlightening, and I think many people understand what happened better as a result of them. I agree that a few people here can be callous; however, I think they are better ignored than sparred with.

[rgoper 0]

Quote

This post would not be occuring because I would be the first to say Tim screwed up. However, in this case, that is not true

i've stayed away from this one purposely until now. i am indeed sorry for your tragic loss, and i'm sure the deceased didn't intentionally get him self killed. but to make the statement i've quoted you above, is irrational IMO. at some point and time, we all must accept the ultimate responseability for our actions, even though some are more tragic than others. please accept this in the spirit in which it is offered. i wish only the best for you, and your family.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[flyangel2 2]

I don't know, am I missing something. I would think if I was involved in a lawsuit, or was even in communication with someone that was doing the lawsuit, I sure wouldn't be reading or posting other information about it. Just out of fear that I would slip up and say something that could be used against the family.
Gary, I am sorry for your friends death. I too have lost someone that was very close to me in a skydiving accident. My children's father. The advise I offer you to help you move on, is to stop reading and posting information. Each person goes through different stages of griving, I'm thinking that you are in the anger stage and that's not going to help anyone. I think it's time for you to close this thread and concentrate on healing.
Good speed,
Mar

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

[D22369 0]

They had their own doctors and coached people on what to say(lie) and fake.


--->> in america?? I am shocked!!!!
I have had some dealings with an attorney like this....

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.