kallend 1,626 #26 July 18, 2010 QuoteDoes the sailplane community have an association that is tasked with self-policing their sport, like USPA is supposed to do for skydiving? If they don't, then the FAA is who regulates them, thus it makes sense that there is an FAA mandated minimum age for flying a sailplane and there isn't one for skydiving. The FAA leaves a lot of the "details" of regulating skydiving to USPA - the whole "self-regulating" or "self-policing" thing. If USPA doesn't address issues that need addressing, eventually the FAA will do it for us. There is a Soaring Society of America www.ssa.org/ but it doesn't self police. That being said, I believe the FAA as boogieman is way overused in this sport.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #27 July 18, 2010 QuotePerhaps you are unaware that Sunpath lost a major lawsuit by an adult lady who had Mark Schaltter (dec.) lie on the stand about a defect in their equipment. She also lied on the stand about how her position during the deployment of her reserve. If the waiver can be completely ignored for an adult, it certainly can be completely ignored for an underage person. If you have any need for more information, I'll give you the contact information for the PIA's attorney and he will be happy to educate you on the subject matter. That one won't even get you off the bench at the freshman debate club season opener. The Sunpath case has nothing to do with the age argument. Neither does Mark Schlatter testifying or whether or not he lied. I'm not even sure how you know the plaintiff lied about her body position during her reserve deployment, but that goes way off topic, so screw it. Lawsuits won't end whether PIA and USPA take a position on the issue or not. Taking a position on the issue will only serve to get a guilty verdict if a DZ chooses not to follow "the rules" and someone gets hurt.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeTJumps 4 #28 July 18, 2010 I know about these things because I attended the attorney's presention of the case at the PIA meeting and the USPA meeting. The point is that the waiver was thrown out as invalid and a less than age of majoritiy's waiver will also be thrown out as they can't sign a binding contract nor can their parents sign the waiver for them. That is the whole crux of the problem. I'll call you tomorrow to fill you in on more details. 107.5 radio.Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #29 July 19, 2010 Quote Lawsuits won't end whether PIA and USPA take a position on the issue or not. Taking a position on the issue will only serve to get a guilty verdict if a DZ chooses not to follow "the rules" and someone gets hurt. Presumably it would get a guilty verdict against the DZ but would protect USPA if the DZ did not follow the rules."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #30 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuote Lawsuits won't end whether PIA and USPA take a position on the issue or not. Taking a position on the issue will only serve to get a guilty verdict if a DZ chooses not to follow "the rules" and someone gets hurt. Presumably it would get a guilty verdict against the DZ but would protect USPA if the DZ did not follow the rules. So it's in the best interest of skydiving to throw a DZ under the bus with a subjective rule that protects the hierarchy? How about we - as a sport - protect THE SPORT, instead of taking positions that pass the liability buck? Thought we were all in this together. Apparently some of us aren't. Think about it.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #31 July 19, 2010 QuoteI know about these things because I attended the attorney's presention of the case at the PIA meeting and the USPA meeting. The point is that the waiver was thrown out as invalid and a less than age of majoritiy's waiver will also be thrown out as they can't sign a binding contract nor can their parents sign the waiver for them. That is the whole crux of the problem. I'll call you tomorrow to fill you in on more details. 107.5 radio. "I know about these things...". Yeah, and I know about murder trials because I went to traffic court. Attorneys are in the business of telling people they need them. Saying any more on the "lawyers know best" issue is a waste of words. Mike, you are missing MY point. When a governing body issues an opinion, it gives blood-sucking plaintiff attorney's a line in the sand that you and I know is crap. My 2 kids grew up on DZ's. They could have safely started jumping at a younger age than they did (16 and "legal") and been perfectly safe. You know that. There is no "age" when skydiving is acceptable. Hell, the Mullins boys are proof! What is for sure is that if USPA, PIA, or any other governing body draws that line, it will only serve to be a weapon FOR the lawyers. Legal ambiguity is skydiving's best tool AGAINST lawsuits. Listening to the people who claim to protect us from the same people they go to happy hour with brings new meaning to the term stupid. 107.5 radio? What is that??Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 July 19, 2010 QuoteThought we were all in this together. Apparently some of us aren't. Someone here actually puts himself forth as an expert and testifies AGAINST drop zones... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #33 July 19, 2010 Robin, do you have any stats that show that people that jump at 16 are more likely to continue to jump and become skydivers or are they just as likely to do one jump and walk away?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #34 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteThought we were all in this together. Apparently some of us aren't. Someone here actually puts himself forth as an expert and testifies AGAINST drop zones... Wasn't aware of that, John. Who might that be?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #35 July 19, 2010 Quote Think about how psychotic the whole age thing is: Car racing associations don't impose age limits, nor do motocross racing, snow skiing, skateboarding and a whole host of other sport associations where kids can kill or maim themselves or others. most of these sports enjoy something that we do not have - liability insurance. And it is reasonably cheap, even with all the litigation. If dropzones could get a liability policy for $10K/year, then it would not matter - claims are handed over to, and handled by that entity. But we do not. therefore ALL the costs of a lawsuit are born by our industry, dropzones, individuals and/or manufacturers and USPA< whomever. We owe it to the aircraft operators and the manufacturers, as well as our instructors and skydivers in general to attempt to protect ourselves from ourselves. Waivers hold up in court. no waiver means hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. THe majority of those lawsuits these days are being borne by the manufacturers. If we lose them, we have no gear. No gear - no skydiving eventually. I cannot even conceive how anyone in this sport does not want to be protected by a waiver. ANd waivers have to be signed by adults. 18 is the obvious choice, whether 3 states have problems with that or not - they would at least become the exceptions. (they already are anyway) BSR, 18 years of age, period. IF USPA does not act, the manufacturers already have stated that they will. TI's will begin to lose their ratings from them if they take minors on skydives. And I expect that the manufacturers of student gear may begin to enter into agreements with the 'users-of-their-equipment' with similar conditions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #36 July 19, 2010 QuoteI know about these things because I attended the attorney's presentation of the case at the PIA meeting and the USPA meeting. The point is that the waiver was thrown out as invalid and a less than age of majoritiy's waiver will also be thrown out as they can't sign a binding contract nor can their parents sign the waiver for them. That is the whole crux of the problem. Well, if I remember correctly from the same seminar I attended, the waiver was NOT thrown out, it was just deemed not to apply to ONE entity due to the placement of a comma in the named parties section of the waiver. In other words, it protected the dropzone, the city, the instructors, the aircraft owners, etc... But since the "gear manufacture" was not properly placed in the sentence with proper grammar, the judge ruled that the gear manufacture of the gear the plaintiff was jumping was not bound by the contract, but instead gear manufactures of gear owned by the DZ would have been bound. This is compounded by the fact that when there is ambiguity in a contract, or confusion in words in a contract, the law says you have to rule against the interests of the person who wrote the contract. (I know this as I just spent 2+ weeks as a jury member determining if a construction industry contract applied to a construction activity, no different than the skydiving lawsuit, almost a mirror image of the case, and one of the 21 jury instructions told us how to rule when a contract is not specific or has ambiguity). I DON'T THINK the sunpath lawsuit applies to the age requirement as a case study or case law. The Sunpath lawsuit was a experienced skydiver, who owned their own gear, suing a gear manufacture. The gear manufacture went to the DZ and asked for a copy of their waiver hoping the DZ's waiver would protect them. I believe this defense is very hard to use as everything has to work perfectly to protect the manufacture and a judge will ask, "why would a DZ protect someone else who they are not related too, when that someone else's product is sold by someone other than the DZ to the user?" He is going to want every T crossed perfectly for that defense to work. I think you would have to look at contract law, in the various states, to see how many times and how often a waiver, WRITTEN BY the DEFENDANT (not a 3rd party), have been thrown out because of age restrictions. I honestly don't know the answer, but this is where I would look if I was concerned. Windtunnels, zip lines, bungee jump operations, hot air balloon pilots all have waivers for underage participants signed by parents and children... They seem to work. Anyone know of cases where they didn't??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #37 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteWindtunnels, zip lines, bungee jump operations, hot air balloon pilots all have waivers for underage participants signed by parents and children... They seem to work. Anyone know of cases where they didn't??? That's an interesting question. Here in Texas, the courts have ruled that a parent cannot sign away the rights of a child (thereby invalidating the waiver), but I don't know of a specific case where a DZ was successfully sued using that ruling. I would also like to hear from a lawyer about USPA/PIA wanting to carve a minimum age into stone. I, for one, think it would only define "acceptable" parameters as decided by pinheads at the head shed. It might protect the organizations legally, but that's not a good reason to institute such policies when the purpose of those organizations is to promote the sport. That decision should be left to the individual businesses to make. I would also be interested in hearing about such lawsuits against companies that rent sailplanes to 14-year olds and powered aircraft to 16-year old.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MakeItHappen 15 #38 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThought we were all in this together. Apparently some of us aren't. Someone here actually puts himself forth as an expert and testifies AGAINST drop zones... Wasn't aware of that, John. Who might that be? I know that Mike Turoff testified against The Parachute Center aka Lodi. But from what I know he was ripped apart on cross examination. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,400 #39 July 19, 2010 >Thought we were all in this together. Apparently some of us aren't. Nope. Lots of people regularly attack USPA for the smallest reason. They go after the BOD, the regional directors and the people who work there. People _very_ regularly attack DZ's associated with Skyride. Jumpers sue equipment manufacturers, badmouth other DZ's and instructors, and try to get DZ's shut down. And every time that happens the person involved claims to have a very good reason for doing so. So no, we're not "all in this together." Like just about every other sport out there, there are a great many differing opinions, agendas and desires. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,626 #40 July 19, 2010 Quote Well, if I remember correctly from the same seminar I attended, the waiver was NOT thrown out, it was just deemed not to apply to ONE entity due to the placement of a comma in the named parties section of the waiver. In other words, it protected the dropzone, the city, the instructors, the aircraft owners, etc... But since the "gear manufacture" was not properly placed in the sentence with proper grammar, the judge ruled that the gear manufacture of the gear the plaintiff was jumping was not bound by the contract, but instead gear manufactures of gear owned by the DZ would have been bound. This is compounded by the fact that when there is ambiguity in a contract, or confusion in words in a contract, the law says you have to rule against the interests of the person who wrote the contract. (I know this as I just spent 2+ weeks as a jury member determining if a construction industry contract applied to a construction activity, no different than the skydiving lawsuit, almost a mirror image of the case, and one of the 21 jury instructions told us how to rule when a contract is not specific or has ambiguity). I hope all the people who regularly complain about Grammar and Spelling Nazis read that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #41 July 19, 2010 QuoteI hope all the people who regularly complain about Grammar and Spelling Nazis read that. That's fine for legal contracts, but I don't think we want all messages here in this forum to read like legal contracts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NovaTTT 1 #42 July 19, 2010 QuotePerhaps you are unaware that Sunpath lost a major lawsuit by an adult lady who had Mark Schaltter (dec.) lie on the stand about a defect in their equipment. She also lied on the stand about how her position during the deployment of her reserve. So she had Slyde lie on the stand - how did she have this done, Mike? Was it for 30 silver pieces? Are you saying you think his honesty and integrity could be so easily bought? If he was so willing to lie, why didn't he do so to save his own ass/business/reputation? It's rotten to speak ill of the dead not because of sentimentality but because that person is unable to defend himself. Slyde may be gone, but I'd like to see the evidence that backs up those comments, Mike."Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #43 July 19, 2010 Quote Robin, do you have any stats that show that people that jump at 16 are more likely to continue to jump and become skydivers or are they just as likely to do one jump and walk away? Jump at 16? I never predicated anything I said on any specific age. I specifically said that we need to eliminate ALL age limits and let individual businesses decide how they want to handle it, be they manufacturers or parachuting centers. As Chuck Akers keeps repeating, USPA's very act of imposing an "official" age limit at all creates all kinds of associated additional legal risks and roadblocks to any manufacturer or parachute center that might want to deviate in any way, shape or form from this arbitrarily imposed "official" age limit that is based on nothing real. I mean, who the heck came up with 16 anyway - because that's when you can get a driver's license? Then why not 15 and 9 months for tandems, because in most states, you can get your driving PERMIT (conditional upon a licensed driver being with you) at that age? The whole thing is bogus on so many levels; that is why I say it's a psychotic proposal. As for your request for "statistics:" how about you look them up yourself, starting with the respective size of multiple other risk sports with no age limits compared to skydiving, which does have an age limit? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #44 July 19, 2010 Quote Quote Think about how psychotic the whole age thing is: Car racing associations don't impose age limits, nor do motocross racing, snow skiing, skateboarding and a whole host of other sport associations where kids can kill or maim themselves or others. most of these sports enjoy something that we do not have - liability insurance. And it is reasonably cheap, even with all the litigation. If dropzones could get a liability policy for $10K/year, then it would not matter - claims are handed over to, and handled by that entity. But we do not. therefore ALL the costs of a lawsuit are born by our industry, dropzones, individuals and/or manufacturers and USPAWe owe it to the aircraft operators and the manufacturers, as well as our instructors and skydivers in general to attempt to protect ourselves from ourselves. Waivers hold up in court. no waiver means hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. THe majority of those lawsuits these days are being borne by the manufacturers. If we lose them, we have no gear. No gear - no skydiving eventually. I cannot even conceive how anyone in this sport does not want to be protected by a waiver. ANd waivers have to be signed by adults. 18 is the obvious choice, whether 3 states have problems with that or not - they would at least become the exceptions. (they already are anyway) BSR, 18 years of age, period. IF USPA does not act, the manufacturers already have stated that they will. TI's will begin to lose their ratings from them if they take minors on skydives. And I expect that the manufacturers of student gear may begin to enter into agreements with the 'users-of-their-equipment' with similar conditions. TK, I have no argument with anything you say -- except that USPA should be involved. I have categorically stated that the age decision should be solely the decision of the parachute center and/or the manufacturer of the equipment. Period. You make multiple good arguments for why YOUR business does not allow anyone younger than 18 to jump. Fine, great, fantastic, good for you, good on ya, mate. That is YOUR business. It is NOT USPA's business to tell you at what age you can let people jump. Still, even your own principal argument breaks down when you say that "most" of the the other sports I mentioned have liability insurance. Okay, what about the "few" who don't? How do they handle the legal risk? Methinks instead of further extending our own psychosis with even sillier age requirements, maybe we ought to see how those sports handle it and see if we could, you know, LEARN SOMETHING from other high-risk sports that do in fact accommodate young participants. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MikeTJumps 4 #45 July 19, 2010 Jan, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you on this forum but you have mis-represented several things in relation to my testimony. 1. I did not testify against the DZ, I testified against the pilot who by the national and international standards that I had access to, did not comply with reasonable and prudent procedures for the operation of the aircraft. This information was confirmed by at least five other high time MEL Jump Pilots, some of which are either on the BOD of the USPA or on the staff. 2. You have failed to mention (due to your lack of knowledge) the seven cases where I defended DZs whether I was hired by the Plaintiff's attorney or the DZ as a defendant. 3. You have openly stated that your conversation with Bill Dause led you to the belief that my testimony was ripped apart in cross and that my testimony was the reason why he won the case. That is not the view of the Jury's report or the attorney for which I was working. Quite the contrary, the Jury originally was split on a decision, wanting to give the defendant something for his injuries but in the end, they decided (without ever having seen or being presented the waiver in evidence) that the plaintiff had the assumption of risk. So, the waiver held up even though it wasn't presented in evidence (which was a total surprise to me). I will continue to tell the truth as it is known to me. Bill Dause should be elated that the decision went in his favor despite the expense that he went through. I'm sure that I have become his number one enemy for life because of my testimony against him. I had no knowledge of the damages being requested unitl the trial was over and done with. I will continue to do my best on behalf of whoever hires me and I will adhere to the highest standards of ethics in my presentations. I wish you luck in your case against Skyride, an organization that (in my opinion) should be brought to justice.Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #46 July 19, 2010 Quote Windtunnels, zip lines, bungee jump operations, hot air balloon pilots all have waivers for underage participants signed by parents and children... They seem to work. Anyone know of cases where they didn't??? Yes, there are lots of reasons and ways that underqage (minor) waiver contracts are or can be thrown out, chiefly because neither the guardian nor the minor can sign a contract for a minor. A key element is what's called "reaffirming" the contract after the minor turns 18 (or whatever the age of majoriy is in a given state). At that time, the former minor can either "reaffirm" their signature on the waiver contract or "disavow" it. There is case law in Colorado where a minor broke her ankle jumping. she had a crafty lawyer who waited until she turned 18, then had her disavow the contract, and filed suit against the DZ. Fortunately for the DZ, the lawyer wasn't crafty enough; this jumper had jumped again after turning 18, so the state supreme court ruled that by getting into the airplane after she turned 18, she in fact reaffirmed her original waiver contract. Game set match to the DZ. If you can find a copy of SKYDIVING #329, there is a long article by me detailing the trials, tribulations and benefits of catering to younger jumpers. There is also this sidebar, which sheds a light on the issue in general, not just how it relates to parachuting. SKYDIVING #329 Copyright 2009 Skydiving Magazine SIDEBAR: A MISH-MASH OF LAWS Drop zone operators wanting to encourage kids and still protect themselves as much as possible from additional liability can take comfort from one key fact: You are not alone in the recreational universe. Skateboard parks get sued too. So do ski areas, rec centers, ice skating rinks and any other sporting or adventure activity you can imagine. No matter the sport, no matter the waiver of liability contracts (WOLCs) or even the indemnification agreements Cindy Gibson uses at her DZ, there is an apparently unlimited supply of idiots who will use any excuse to sic a lawyer on your ass if given half a chance. It can be a no-win situation too. When automated external defibrillators (AEDs) became available, many recreation centers and gyms chose not to get them because they feared being sued if a staff member or client used one incorrectly on a stricken individual. Then somebody had a heart attack at a gym without one – and the gym owners got sued for not having an AED onsite. But wait, it gets better. Not only do the contract rules for minors differ from state to state, the legal weight and even the basic validity of associated parental indemnification contracts vary too. Part of this is the interesting notion that parental WOLCs and indemnification contracts can be invalidated because they run counter to a given state’s public policy of “protecting individuals unable to care for themselves,” as the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a 12-year-old injured at a skateboard park (Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park [187 N.J. 323; 901 A.2d 381 (2006)]. But wait, it gets even better than that. After the public policy argument comes the commercial/non-commercial argument, as in: A WOLC protecting a public recreation facility can be upheld – but an identical WOLC protecting a privately owned recreational facility can be invalidated – because community and/or nonprofit organizations are bound by different public policy considerations than commercial enterprises. Then we come to arbitration contracts and arbitration clauses within WOLCs. This same New Jersey court upheld the arbitration portion of the skateboard park WOLC because it found that arbitration agreements don’t force a minor to forego any substantive rights. A Florida appellate court, on the other hand, in a case involving an 11-year-old killed by hyenas on an African safari, ruled that a parent cannot bind a child to an arbitration agreement because doing so was contrary to Florida’s public policy of protecting children’s rights and maintaining the state’s supreme guardianship position (parens patriae) (Shea v. Global Travel Marketing, Inc., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2004, D2005 [Fla.4th DCA 2003]). Two years later, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the appellate decision, finding that “the arbitration provision in this commercial travel contract is not unconscionable, in violation of any statutory prohibition, or void as against public policy” (Shea v. Global Marketing, No. SC03-1704, July 2005). Getting the picture? Basically, common sense does not apply when it comes to tort law generally, and tort law involving minors specifically. No matter what you do, somebody can find a lawyer somewhere who can cite a court decision from who-knows-where that can tie you – and your dollars – up in court for years. It is certainly more complicated when minors are involved, but the same basic rules that govern a drop zone’s approach to adult WOLCs apply to kids too: Do your homework; and do everything as close to perfectly as you can – then cross your fingers and hope Murphy doesn’t come calling. –Robin HeidSCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #47 July 19, 2010 Quote Waivers hold up in court. no waiver means hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. THe majority of those lawsuits these days are being borne by the manufacturers. If we lose them, we have no gear. No gear - no skydiving eventually. I cannot even conceive how anyone in this sport does not want to be protected by a waiver. ANd waivers have to be signed by adults . 18 is the obvious choice, whether 3 states have problems with that or not - they would at least become the exceptions. (they already are anyway) BSR, 18 years of age, period. I am not sure why this is the case (particularly the bolded part). I have signed waivers for my kids to go canoeing and white water rafting. I have signed waivers for them to rock climb and horse back ride. Why would waivers hold up for those activities and not ours? Are there specific cases in which skydiving waivers have been held invalid because they were signed by a parent and not somebody 18?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tdog 0 #48 July 19, 2010 Quote Quote Perhaps you are unaware that Sunpath lost a major lawsuit by an adult lady who had Mark Schaltter (dec.) lie on the stand about a defect in their equipment. She also lied on the stand about how her position during the deployment of her reserve. So she had Slyde lie on the stand - how did she have this done, Mike? Was it for 30 silver pieces? Are you saying you think his honesty and integrity could be so easily bought? If he was so willing to lie, why didn't he do so to save his own ass/business/reputation? It's rotten to speak ill of the dead not because of sentimentality but because that person is unable to defend himself. Slyde may be gone, but I'd like to see the evidence that backs up those comments, Mike. The video depositions we watched for HOURS from the suit, at PIA, were unbelievable. The injured skydiver said some of the most ridiculous things... Things that an AFF FJC student would have known were wrong. Sad actually. About Slyde lying on the stand... The following is my memory NOT WORD FOR WORD, but close enough that I am willing to put it online as an approximation of the video depo: Lawyer (L): Have you ever discussed with anyone how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness in a case? Slyde (S): No L: Are you getting paid as an expert witness in this case? S: Yes L: Do you know Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: Have you worked professionally with Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: Have you ever emailed Dan Poynter about this case? S: No L: Did you ever email Dan Poynter asking him how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness? S: No L: Is your email address [email protected]? S: Yes L: Did you know that Dan Poynter is an expert witness in this case, working for the Defense? S: No L: Did you send this email to Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: In this email do you ask Dan Poynter how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness working for your client? S: Yes L: So you just committed perjury because you just testified under oath that you never sent this email, then you testified you did? S: Yes --- As anyone who has watched a complicated trial knows, expert witnesses are hired to spin the truth to help their client. They are to give opinions, based upon tidbits of reality, that give their client an advantage. When asked about other tidbits that can hurt their client, they use words like, "I would have to research that" or "I don't have that data with me" or "I am not aware of those policies".... Slyde might have been a bit too much for the plaintiff and taken his role of expert witness too far, but the part I forever lost respect for was the 100% lies about his emails, for which I saw in the video depo with my own two eyes. It might have hurt is credibility A LITTLE if he admitted he was maximizing his profit. It hurt is credibility A LOT that he did not admit it. But then anyone who is an expert witness, that is not smart enough to ask a parachute expert if they also are an expert witness in the same case prior to seeking their advice is probably not well enough trained to be an expert witness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites robinheid 0 #49 July 19, 2010 Quote Quote Waivers hold up in court. no waiver means hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. THe majority of those lawsuits these days are being borne by the manufacturers. If we lose them, we have no gear. No gear - no skydiving eventually. I cannot even conceive how anyone in this sport does not want to be protected by a waiver. ANd waivers have to be signed by adults . 18 is the obvious choice, whether 3 states have problems with that or not - they would at least become the exceptions. (they already are anyway) BSR, 18 years of age, period. I am not sure why this is the case (particularly the bolded part). I have signed waivers for my kids to go canoeing and white water rafting. I have signed waivers for them to rock climb and horse back ride. Why would waivers hold up for those activities and not ours? Are there specific cases in which skydiving waivers have been held invalid because they were signed by a parent and not somebody 18? Hey man, I hope the formatting didn't confuse you into thinking that what you quoted above was something I said; that was part of TK's quote, not mine. Long answer short, though: TK is incorrect about waiver of liability contracts (WOLCs) "holding up in court" and thus not costing you "hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees." Often, you still have to spend the big bucks on legal fees -- but then the WOLC is upheld and what you avoid paying is the judgment. As I point out in a post above, WOLCs do not protect you from suits from adults or children, and it is indeed touchier when a minor is involved because of the issues about whether kids can sign a WOLC or their parents can sign for them. There are indeed many cases where riding, rafting, canoeing, or climbing businesses have been sued by kids and adults alike after they hurt themselves. It even happens in states such as Colorado and Utah, where there is literally state law that protects horse/skiing businesses from liability, so a little ol' stand-alone WOLC doesn't have a chance of pre-empting a lawsuit; it just helps you prevail once it's filed. That's in part why 15 years ago I advocated a WOLC-associated video that shows potential skydiving customers real carnage -- serious, bloody, dismembered carnage -- before they sign the WOLC so that, if that fool then decides to sue, the DZ lawyer can show that vid to plaintiff's counsel early in the process and say, "how do you think it'll play to the jury when they find out your client watched this carnage and then did it anyway?" You see, a whole bunch of drop zones and the USPA itself set up the climate for these kinds of lawsuits by telling everyone how "safe" skydiving is in order to get more customers. Me, I would tell them repeatedly that they are "entering the Reaper & Murphy Zone, where the Reaper always lurks and Murphy will arrange for you to meet him in 100 different ways than you imagine, so if you still want to do it, sign here, but don't forget, you may go outta here today at room temperature and never be able to tell anybody lies about your first and last skydive." Sure, it may dissuade the more faint-hearted among the potential customer base from jumping, but it also reduces the chance that the remaining ones will sue, and who knows? It may just bring out more customers looking to do something dangerous... heck, people all the time are standing in line at roller coasters making jokes about how the thing ran off the rails the week before, or reminding everyone of the the guy who died on that coaster the year before, etc. (Edited for typos)SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JerryBaumchen 1,048 #50 July 19, 2010 Hi Mike, Quote I did not testify against the DZ, QuoteI'm sure that I have become his number one enemy for life because of my testimony against him. Could explain these two comments a little fuller? JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
MakeItHappen 15 #38 July 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThought we were all in this together. Apparently some of us aren't. Someone here actually puts himself forth as an expert and testifies AGAINST drop zones... Wasn't aware of that, John. Who might that be? I know that Mike Turoff testified against The Parachute Center aka Lodi. But from what I know he was ripped apart on cross examination. .. Make It Happen Parachute History DiveMaker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #39 July 19, 2010 >Thought we were all in this together. Apparently some of us aren't. Nope. Lots of people regularly attack USPA for the smallest reason. They go after the BOD, the regional directors and the people who work there. People _very_ regularly attack DZ's associated with Skyride. Jumpers sue equipment manufacturers, badmouth other DZ's and instructors, and try to get DZ's shut down. And every time that happens the person involved claims to have a very good reason for doing so. So no, we're not "all in this together." Like just about every other sport out there, there are a great many differing opinions, agendas and desires. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,626 #40 July 19, 2010 Quote Well, if I remember correctly from the same seminar I attended, the waiver was NOT thrown out, it was just deemed not to apply to ONE entity due to the placement of a comma in the named parties section of the waiver. In other words, it protected the dropzone, the city, the instructors, the aircraft owners, etc... But since the "gear manufacture" was not properly placed in the sentence with proper grammar, the judge ruled that the gear manufacture of the gear the plaintiff was jumping was not bound by the contract, but instead gear manufactures of gear owned by the DZ would have been bound. This is compounded by the fact that when there is ambiguity in a contract, or confusion in words in a contract, the law says you have to rule against the interests of the person who wrote the contract. (I know this as I just spent 2+ weeks as a jury member determining if a construction industry contract applied to a construction activity, no different than the skydiving lawsuit, almost a mirror image of the case, and one of the 21 jury instructions told us how to rule when a contract is not specific or has ambiguity). I hope all the people who regularly complain about Grammar and Spelling Nazis read that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #41 July 19, 2010 QuoteI hope all the people who regularly complain about Grammar and Spelling Nazis read that. That's fine for legal contracts, but I don't think we want all messages here in this forum to read like legal contracts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NovaTTT 1 #42 July 19, 2010 QuotePerhaps you are unaware that Sunpath lost a major lawsuit by an adult lady who had Mark Schaltter (dec.) lie on the stand about a defect in their equipment. She also lied on the stand about how her position during the deployment of her reserve. So she had Slyde lie on the stand - how did she have this done, Mike? Was it for 30 silver pieces? Are you saying you think his honesty and integrity could be so easily bought? If he was so willing to lie, why didn't he do so to save his own ass/business/reputation? It's rotten to speak ill of the dead not because of sentimentality but because that person is unable to defend himself. Slyde may be gone, but I'd like to see the evidence that backs up those comments, Mike."Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #43 July 19, 2010 Quote Robin, do you have any stats that show that people that jump at 16 are more likely to continue to jump and become skydivers or are they just as likely to do one jump and walk away? Jump at 16? I never predicated anything I said on any specific age. I specifically said that we need to eliminate ALL age limits and let individual businesses decide how they want to handle it, be they manufacturers or parachuting centers. As Chuck Akers keeps repeating, USPA's very act of imposing an "official" age limit at all creates all kinds of associated additional legal risks and roadblocks to any manufacturer or parachute center that might want to deviate in any way, shape or form from this arbitrarily imposed "official" age limit that is based on nothing real. I mean, who the heck came up with 16 anyway - because that's when you can get a driver's license? Then why not 15 and 9 months for tandems, because in most states, you can get your driving PERMIT (conditional upon a licensed driver being with you) at that age? The whole thing is bogus on so many levels; that is why I say it's a psychotic proposal. As for your request for "statistics:" how about you look them up yourself, starting with the respective size of multiple other risk sports with no age limits compared to skydiving, which does have an age limit? SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #44 July 19, 2010 Quote Quote Think about how psychotic the whole age thing is: Car racing associations don't impose age limits, nor do motocross racing, snow skiing, skateboarding and a whole host of other sport associations where kids can kill or maim themselves or others. most of these sports enjoy something that we do not have - liability insurance. And it is reasonably cheap, even with all the litigation. If dropzones could get a liability policy for $10K/year, then it would not matter - claims are handed over to, and handled by that entity. But we do not. therefore ALL the costs of a lawsuit are born by our industry, dropzones, individuals and/or manufacturers and USPAWe owe it to the aircraft operators and the manufacturers, as well as our instructors and skydivers in general to attempt to protect ourselves from ourselves. Waivers hold up in court. no waiver means hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. THe majority of those lawsuits these days are being borne by the manufacturers. If we lose them, we have no gear. No gear - no skydiving eventually. I cannot even conceive how anyone in this sport does not want to be protected by a waiver. ANd waivers have to be signed by adults. 18 is the obvious choice, whether 3 states have problems with that or not - they would at least become the exceptions. (they already are anyway) BSR, 18 years of age, period. IF USPA does not act, the manufacturers already have stated that they will. TI's will begin to lose their ratings from them if they take minors on skydives. And I expect that the manufacturers of student gear may begin to enter into agreements with the 'users-of-their-equipment' with similar conditions. TK, I have no argument with anything you say -- except that USPA should be involved. I have categorically stated that the age decision should be solely the decision of the parachute center and/or the manufacturer of the equipment. Period. You make multiple good arguments for why YOUR business does not allow anyone younger than 18 to jump. Fine, great, fantastic, good for you, good on ya, mate. That is YOUR business. It is NOT USPA's business to tell you at what age you can let people jump. Still, even your own principal argument breaks down when you say that "most" of the the other sports I mentioned have liability insurance. Okay, what about the "few" who don't? How do they handle the legal risk? Methinks instead of further extending our own psychosis with even sillier age requirements, maybe we ought to see how those sports handle it and see if we could, you know, LEARN SOMETHING from other high-risk sports that do in fact accommodate young participants. SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeTJumps 4 #45 July 19, 2010 Jan, I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you on this forum but you have mis-represented several things in relation to my testimony. 1. I did not testify against the DZ, I testified against the pilot who by the national and international standards that I had access to, did not comply with reasonable and prudent procedures for the operation of the aircraft. This information was confirmed by at least five other high time MEL Jump Pilots, some of which are either on the BOD of the USPA or on the staff. 2. You have failed to mention (due to your lack of knowledge) the seven cases where I defended DZs whether I was hired by the Plaintiff's attorney or the DZ as a defendant. 3. You have openly stated that your conversation with Bill Dause led you to the belief that my testimony was ripped apart in cross and that my testimony was the reason why he won the case. That is not the view of the Jury's report or the attorney for which I was working. Quite the contrary, the Jury originally was split on a decision, wanting to give the defendant something for his injuries but in the end, they decided (without ever having seen or being presented the waiver in evidence) that the plaintiff had the assumption of risk. So, the waiver held up even though it wasn't presented in evidence (which was a total surprise to me). I will continue to tell the truth as it is known to me. Bill Dause should be elated that the decision went in his favor despite the expense that he went through. I'm sure that I have become his number one enemy for life because of my testimony against him. I had no knowledge of the damages being requested unitl the trial was over and done with. I will continue to do my best on behalf of whoever hires me and I will adhere to the highest standards of ethics in my presentations. I wish you luck in your case against Skyride, an organization that (in my opinion) should be brought to justice.Mike Turoff Instructor Examiner, USPA Co-author of Parachuting, The Skydiver's Handbook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #46 July 19, 2010 Quote Windtunnels, zip lines, bungee jump operations, hot air balloon pilots all have waivers for underage participants signed by parents and children... They seem to work. Anyone know of cases where they didn't??? Yes, there are lots of reasons and ways that underqage (minor) waiver contracts are or can be thrown out, chiefly because neither the guardian nor the minor can sign a contract for a minor. A key element is what's called "reaffirming" the contract after the minor turns 18 (or whatever the age of majoriy is in a given state). At that time, the former minor can either "reaffirm" their signature on the waiver contract or "disavow" it. There is case law in Colorado where a minor broke her ankle jumping. she had a crafty lawyer who waited until she turned 18, then had her disavow the contract, and filed suit against the DZ. Fortunately for the DZ, the lawyer wasn't crafty enough; this jumper had jumped again after turning 18, so the state supreme court ruled that by getting into the airplane after she turned 18, she in fact reaffirmed her original waiver contract. Game set match to the DZ. If you can find a copy of SKYDIVING #329, there is a long article by me detailing the trials, tribulations and benefits of catering to younger jumpers. There is also this sidebar, which sheds a light on the issue in general, not just how it relates to parachuting. SKYDIVING #329 Copyright 2009 Skydiving Magazine SIDEBAR: A MISH-MASH OF LAWS Drop zone operators wanting to encourage kids and still protect themselves as much as possible from additional liability can take comfort from one key fact: You are not alone in the recreational universe. Skateboard parks get sued too. So do ski areas, rec centers, ice skating rinks and any other sporting or adventure activity you can imagine. No matter the sport, no matter the waiver of liability contracts (WOLCs) or even the indemnification agreements Cindy Gibson uses at her DZ, there is an apparently unlimited supply of idiots who will use any excuse to sic a lawyer on your ass if given half a chance. It can be a no-win situation too. When automated external defibrillators (AEDs) became available, many recreation centers and gyms chose not to get them because they feared being sued if a staff member or client used one incorrectly on a stricken individual. Then somebody had a heart attack at a gym without one – and the gym owners got sued for not having an AED onsite. But wait, it gets better. Not only do the contract rules for minors differ from state to state, the legal weight and even the basic validity of associated parental indemnification contracts vary too. Part of this is the interesting notion that parental WOLCs and indemnification contracts can be invalidated because they run counter to a given state’s public policy of “protecting individuals unable to care for themselves,” as the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a 12-year-old injured at a skateboard park (Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park [187 N.J. 323; 901 A.2d 381 (2006)]. But wait, it gets even better than that. After the public policy argument comes the commercial/non-commercial argument, as in: A WOLC protecting a public recreation facility can be upheld – but an identical WOLC protecting a privately owned recreational facility can be invalidated – because community and/or nonprofit organizations are bound by different public policy considerations than commercial enterprises. Then we come to arbitration contracts and arbitration clauses within WOLCs. This same New Jersey court upheld the arbitration portion of the skateboard park WOLC because it found that arbitration agreements don’t force a minor to forego any substantive rights. A Florida appellate court, on the other hand, in a case involving an 11-year-old killed by hyenas on an African safari, ruled that a parent cannot bind a child to an arbitration agreement because doing so was contrary to Florida’s public policy of protecting children’s rights and maintaining the state’s supreme guardianship position (parens patriae) (Shea v. Global Travel Marketing, Inc., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D2004, D2005 [Fla.4th DCA 2003]). Two years later, the Florida Supreme Court overturned the appellate decision, finding that “the arbitration provision in this commercial travel contract is not unconscionable, in violation of any statutory prohibition, or void as against public policy” (Shea v. Global Marketing, No. SC03-1704, July 2005). Getting the picture? Basically, common sense does not apply when it comes to tort law generally, and tort law involving minors specifically. No matter what you do, somebody can find a lawyer somewhere who can cite a court decision from who-knows-where that can tie you – and your dollars – up in court for years. It is certainly more complicated when minors are involved, but the same basic rules that govern a drop zone’s approach to adult WOLCs apply to kids too: Do your homework; and do everything as close to perfectly as you can – then cross your fingers and hope Murphy doesn’t come calling. –Robin HeidSCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #47 July 19, 2010 Quote Waivers hold up in court. no waiver means hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. THe majority of those lawsuits these days are being borne by the manufacturers. If we lose them, we have no gear. No gear - no skydiving eventually. I cannot even conceive how anyone in this sport does not want to be protected by a waiver. ANd waivers have to be signed by adults . 18 is the obvious choice, whether 3 states have problems with that or not - they would at least become the exceptions. (they already are anyway) BSR, 18 years of age, period. I am not sure why this is the case (particularly the bolded part). I have signed waivers for my kids to go canoeing and white water rafting. I have signed waivers for them to rock climb and horse back ride. Why would waivers hold up for those activities and not ours? Are there specific cases in which skydiving waivers have been held invalid because they were signed by a parent and not somebody 18?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tdog 0 #48 July 19, 2010 Quote Quote Perhaps you are unaware that Sunpath lost a major lawsuit by an adult lady who had Mark Schaltter (dec.) lie on the stand about a defect in their equipment. She also lied on the stand about how her position during the deployment of her reserve. So she had Slyde lie on the stand - how did she have this done, Mike? Was it for 30 silver pieces? Are you saying you think his honesty and integrity could be so easily bought? If he was so willing to lie, why didn't he do so to save his own ass/business/reputation? It's rotten to speak ill of the dead not because of sentimentality but because that person is unable to defend himself. Slyde may be gone, but I'd like to see the evidence that backs up those comments, Mike. The video depositions we watched for HOURS from the suit, at PIA, were unbelievable. The injured skydiver said some of the most ridiculous things... Things that an AFF FJC student would have known were wrong. Sad actually. About Slyde lying on the stand... The following is my memory NOT WORD FOR WORD, but close enough that I am willing to put it online as an approximation of the video depo: Lawyer (L): Have you ever discussed with anyone how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness in a case? Slyde (S): No L: Are you getting paid as an expert witness in this case? S: Yes L: Do you know Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: Have you worked professionally with Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: Have you ever emailed Dan Poynter about this case? S: No L: Did you ever email Dan Poynter asking him how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness? S: No L: Is your email address [email protected]? S: Yes L: Did you know that Dan Poynter is an expert witness in this case, working for the Defense? S: No L: Did you send this email to Dan Poynter? S: Yes L: In this email do you ask Dan Poynter how to maximize your revenue as an expert witness working for your client? S: Yes L: So you just committed perjury because you just testified under oath that you never sent this email, then you testified you did? S: Yes --- As anyone who has watched a complicated trial knows, expert witnesses are hired to spin the truth to help their client. They are to give opinions, based upon tidbits of reality, that give their client an advantage. When asked about other tidbits that can hurt their client, they use words like, "I would have to research that" or "I don't have that data with me" or "I am not aware of those policies".... Slyde might have been a bit too much for the plaintiff and taken his role of expert witness too far, but the part I forever lost respect for was the 100% lies about his emails, for which I saw in the video depo with my own two eyes. It might have hurt is credibility A LITTLE if he admitted he was maximizing his profit. It hurt is credibility A LOT that he did not admit it. But then anyone who is an expert witness, that is not smart enough to ask a parachute expert if they also are an expert witness in the same case prior to seeking their advice is probably not well enough trained to be an expert witness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robinheid 0 #49 July 19, 2010 Quote Quote Waivers hold up in court. no waiver means hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. THe majority of those lawsuits these days are being borne by the manufacturers. If we lose them, we have no gear. No gear - no skydiving eventually. I cannot even conceive how anyone in this sport does not want to be protected by a waiver. ANd waivers have to be signed by adults . 18 is the obvious choice, whether 3 states have problems with that or not - they would at least become the exceptions. (they already are anyway) BSR, 18 years of age, period. I am not sure why this is the case (particularly the bolded part). I have signed waivers for my kids to go canoeing and white water rafting. I have signed waivers for them to rock climb and horse back ride. Why would waivers hold up for those activities and not ours? Are there specific cases in which skydiving waivers have been held invalid because they were signed by a parent and not somebody 18? Hey man, I hope the formatting didn't confuse you into thinking that what you quoted above was something I said; that was part of TK's quote, not mine. Long answer short, though: TK is incorrect about waiver of liability contracts (WOLCs) "holding up in court" and thus not costing you "hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees." Often, you still have to spend the big bucks on legal fees -- but then the WOLC is upheld and what you avoid paying is the judgment. As I point out in a post above, WOLCs do not protect you from suits from adults or children, and it is indeed touchier when a minor is involved because of the issues about whether kids can sign a WOLC or their parents can sign for them. There are indeed many cases where riding, rafting, canoeing, or climbing businesses have been sued by kids and adults alike after they hurt themselves. It even happens in states such as Colorado and Utah, where there is literally state law that protects horse/skiing businesses from liability, so a little ol' stand-alone WOLC doesn't have a chance of pre-empting a lawsuit; it just helps you prevail once it's filed. That's in part why 15 years ago I advocated a WOLC-associated video that shows potential skydiving customers real carnage -- serious, bloody, dismembered carnage -- before they sign the WOLC so that, if that fool then decides to sue, the DZ lawyer can show that vid to plaintiff's counsel early in the process and say, "how do you think it'll play to the jury when they find out your client watched this carnage and then did it anyway?" You see, a whole bunch of drop zones and the USPA itself set up the climate for these kinds of lawsuits by telling everyone how "safe" skydiving is in order to get more customers. Me, I would tell them repeatedly that they are "entering the Reaper & Murphy Zone, where the Reaper always lurks and Murphy will arrange for you to meet him in 100 different ways than you imagine, so if you still want to do it, sign here, but don't forget, you may go outta here today at room temperature and never be able to tell anybody lies about your first and last skydive." Sure, it may dissuade the more faint-hearted among the potential customer base from jumping, but it also reduces the chance that the remaining ones will sue, and who knows? It may just bring out more customers looking to do something dangerous... heck, people all the time are standing in line at roller coasters making jokes about how the thing ran off the rails the week before, or reminding everyone of the the guy who died on that coaster the year before, etc. (Edited for typos)SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.) "The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #50 July 19, 2010 Hi Mike, Quote I did not testify against the DZ, QuoteI'm sure that I have become his number one enemy for life because of my testimony against him. Could explain these two comments a little fuller? JerryBaumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
