0
gharendza

"Non Waiver" Dropzones

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

because SKYDIVERS don't sue



But their families will.



The families don't sign waivers anyway.



Unless the jumper is a minor, the family usually doesn’t have standing to sue unless the jumper dies. Waivers are usually worded to apply to the signer (the jumper) and his/her “heirs, successors and assigns”, which means his family; and that does greatly restrict the ability of a surviving family to prevail in a lawsuit against the DZ as compared to a no-waiver situation. So despite what may be said by a few getting in a gratuitous “bash” remark or two, I still stand by my position that DZ’s are far better protected with signed waivers than without.
P.S. - A paltry $500 cannot begin to compensate a DZ for the potential consequences of not having a jumper sign a waiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys,

Let us not fool ourselves.

DZs get sued by both injured skydivers and families of deceased skydivers, waiver or not.

For that matter, parachute manufactures get sued, instructors get sued, pilots get sued, and the list continues.

The waiver in the end can be worthless in the face of a jury.

It seems to me that people think a bucket of dollars will bring closure :S

Not to bring back bad memories, but here is a clear example:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=695491;search_string=rantoul%20accident%20chopper;#695491
Memento Audere Semper

903

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I remember reading about a very recent lawsuit in.. I think it was New Jersey.. in which a judge reitterated that a family's right to sue for the wrongfull death of a family member cannot be affected by the signing of a waier by the deceased. You cannot sign away someone elses rights. In said case I believe the daughter (don't quote me) sued successfully for gross negligence causing death against some sort of scuba company.

Waivers do not exclude the dropzones liability to take any reasonable measures necessary to ensure the safety of it's participants. You can not have someone sign a waiver saying it is ok to kill them and then kill them and get away with it. Just causes more paperwork to be filed in the system.

I like the idea of charging more to not sign a waiver and then making them sign something saying they refuse to sign a waiver... thats funny shit. Anyone who pays more and signs that should not be allowed to progress past tandems, and should be immediately directed to the nearest bowling ally. And then you should make them sign a waiver stating that they refused to sign a waiver that you are not liable for them getting hurt bowling.

--------------------------------------------------
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The waiver in the end can be worthless in the face of a jury.



Oh, please gang waivers hold up far more often than not. It isn't perfect protection but it the best we have. It has saved the collective asses of many a DZ and instructor over the years both from injured "skydivers" (many tandems and FJ students) and from the families of fatalities. Just because they are thrown out once in a while does not mean they are worthless! In fact their very existence has avoided many a lawsuit!
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, this is starting to bog down; but to discuss a couple of points made by various people:

Quote

The waiver in the end can be worthless in the face of a jury.


Juries usually don’t decide whether a claim is barred by a waiver. Most of the time the judge decides that issue before the case gets to trial.

Quote

I think I remember reading about a very recent lawsuit in.. I think it was New Jersey.. in which a judge reitterated that a family's right to sue for the wrongfull death of a family member cannot be affected by the signing of a waier by the deceased. You cannot sign away someone elses rights. In said case I believe the daughter (don't quote me) sued successfully for gross negligence causing death against some sort of scuba company.



And that’s why I was careful to say that waivers restrict the ability of a family to prevail on a claim, they do not entirely eliminate it. And some protection for the DZ is certainly better than none.
In a death case, most states split the case into two components: the first being the claim by the jumper’s estate on behalf of “him had he not died”. That claim will generally be barred by the waiver, because it is essentially derived from the jumper’s own rights, which he signed away in the waiver. The second is the claim by the relatives, in their own right, for the loss of their relative. In some states, the waivers block those claims, too; while in other states (apparently NJ is one of them), such claims are still allowed, notwithstanding the waiver.

Quote

You can not have someone sign a waiver saying it is ok to kill them and then kill them and get away with it.



True. But you can have them sign a waiver acknowledging that shit happens (i.e., the inherent dangers of skydiving), and waiving their right to sue if that shit does indeed happen.

The instance where a waiver will not protect a DZ is where the injury/death is caused not just due to the inherent danger of skydiving, but due to the gross negligence (i.e., more than ordinary negligence) of the DZ. (For example, that video in skydivingmovies.com where the TI neglected to hook up the student’s upper links before jumping. Some judges would say that that kind of gross negligence, had it caused the student’s injury or death (thank God it didn’t) is way beyond the scope of the inherent dangers of skydiving, and thus is not covered by the waiver.)

People (in civilian life) signing waivers before engaging in a hazardous activity are not being coerced into doing so. If they don't want to sign, they always have the option of not engaging in the activity.

As I said before, waivers aren’t bullet-proof, and they aren't cure-alls, but DZ’s are a hell of a lot better with them than without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The waiver in the end can be worthless in the face of a jury.



Oh, please gang waivers hold up far more often than not. It isn't perfect protection but it the best we have. It has saved the collective asses of many a DZ and instructor over the years both from injured "skydivers" (many tandems and FJ students) and from the families of fatalities. Just because they are thrown out once in a while does not mean they are worthless! In fact their very existence has avoided many a lawsuit!



Absolutely correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>because SKYDIVERS don't sue.

They do now. Ever since Kat sued Fliteline out of existence, that old axiom isn't true any more.

Who are Kat and Fliteline ?? This could be split for better comprehension of the thread.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

The waiver in the end can be worthless in the face of a jury.



Oh, please gang waivers hold up far more often than not. It isn't perfect protection but it the best we have. It has saved the collective asses of many a DZ and instructor over the years both from injured "skydivers"

I can speak first hand about this.
Many years ago as a TM/I at our local DZ an older lady, late 40s signed up for our student program.....I took her thru the tandem progression.....then sent her off to the AFF crew.....she did well and was released to jump on her own. At approx. 40 jumps she had a mal on her main......she failed to cutaway as she had been trained.....and dumped the reserve into the fouled main. She went in with a half opened reserve and a ball of shit main. She survived with major broken bone.....pelvis, femurs, back and paralysis.

A couple years after the incident the DZ is served with a lawsuit from her....to include myself, the DZO, the AFF guys....even the guy that picked us up in the van.
She said we didnt train her well enough.

Long story short...they upheld the waiver in court. As it turned out the DZO was so spooked after the loss of 35k to defend it...he closed up.

bozo


bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>because SKYDIVERS don't sue.

They do now. Ever since Kat sued Fliteline out of existence, that old axiom isn't true any more.

Who are Kat and Fliteline ?? This could be split for better comprehension of the thread.



http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/2000/05/08/957755913.html
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bozo: That's the perfect example of the kind of situation in which a waiver will usually be upheld & (more or less) protect a DZ & everyone else: shit happened; it was within the scope of the inherent dangers of skydiving; waiver upheld.

General question to anyone, re: the 2 examples of a DZO & a rigger spending so much on legal fees to successfully defend a case: is it possible for a DZ to get affordable liability insurance (since insurance covers legal defense costs)? How about a rigger, or instructor, etc. for himself? Anyone know?
(Actual knowledge only, please; no guesses.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Kolomna, Russia - you can choose to pay extra and not sign the waiver... otherwise you can just pay their usual nominal membership fee and sign the waiver.
... I suspect this has something to do with a provision of the Russian legal system however rather than their disbelief in waivers.



Your suspection is correct. The reason is in the legal system itself in Russia. A chance for an ordinary citizen (not a CEO of oil company, or a big politician) to successfully sue a dropzone, and to win any reasonable amount of money (something greater than $200) is equal to a chance for him/her to win a $10M in a lottery. This way DZs do not really NEED waivers.

Note that you're not allowed to have a jury in Russia in such cases.
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Does Hollister still allow someone to skip over part or all of the waiver for an extra $500?



Yes, they do. But what's a reason to pay extra 500 for it?



There isn't one. Makes a $200 jump cost 700. And

As the examples in this thread show, the waiver doesn't mean a heck of a lot. One can still cost the DZ good money defending themselves, and gross negligence is still arguable. With or without it, you're still going to lose.

It just hopefully cuts down on the number of people that try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like

> Long story short...they upheld the waiver in court. As it turned out the DZO was so spooked after the loss of 35k to defend it...he closed up.

??

In SoCal they videotape people reading their waiver, since the printed form itself didn't deter expensive litigation either.

---
I'm interested in any case history where the lack or presence of a waiver was the only difference between winning and losing. Rather than merely a more direct route.

Also, have they managed to get the plaintiff to pay all legal expenses?

Hollister, Vegas, others will let you jump for more money because they know that ultimately, the risks to them are the same, and this way they can collect $500 extra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hollister, Vegas, others will let you jump for more money because they know that ultimately, the risks to them are the same



You don't really believe this do you????
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m starting to feel like I’m repeating myself (in fact I know I am), but ok, I’ll give it one more shot.

Most of the decisions are not published, and thus I can’t haul most of them out for you. That’s because the vast, vast majority of “jumper/or/family vs. DZ” lawsuits that are dismissed based on the waiver are dismissed at the trial court level, before the case ever gets to trial, on what’s called a “motion for summary judgment”. Except for some federal court cases (and most recreational-activity cases - skydiving, skiing, whitewater rafting, etc. - are brought in state court, not federal court), trial court dismissals usually don't result in the publishing of a court opinion. Usually only an appeals court decision results in a published opinion; and that won’t happen unless someone appeals what happened in the trial court.

In terms of pure numbers, most of the “recreational activity/waiver” lawsuits deal with sports/activities other than skydiving. By my quick review, waivers are upheld in the vast majority of the cases, and the lawsuits are dismissed before getting to trial. In the few (few!) cases in which the waivers were set aside, the courts concluded that the operator engaged in some specific act of substantial negligence that went way beyond the inherent risks of the activity (ie, far beyond the “shit happens” factor).

Here’s a few published cases in which skydiving waivers were upheld, and the cases were dismissed before trial:


DARE v. FREEFALL ADVENTURES, 349 N.J. Super. 205, 793 A.2d 125 (2002)

MALECHA v. ST. CROIX VALLEY SKYDIVING CLUB, 392 N.W.2d 727 (Minn.App. 1986)

The underlying (dismissed) trial court case cited in CAVALLARY v. LAKEWOOD SKY DIVING CENTER, 623 F. Supp. 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)

PARALIFT, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT, 23 Cal.App.4th 748, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 177 (1993)

Yes, 10K or 20K in legal defense fees is nothing to sneeze at. I don’t know if there is affordable liability insurance available to DZ’s that would cover those defense costs. No, in the US you generally can't shift your legal fees to a losing plaintiff. But still, 10-20K in fees pales by comparison to maybe $500,000 in a judgment that might be incurred if these waivers were generally not upheld. And because they generally are upheld, that certainly acts as a deterrent to many, many other lawsuits getting filed in the first place. And that’s a good thing for our sport.

I’ll say this one last time: signed waivers, though not perfect protection, are pretty effective, they usually make a huge difference in court, and DZs are FAR better with them than without them.

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