0
MakeItHappen

Sad news for tandem

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So please get a clue about how the real legal world works before you break wind through your mouth again.




And this approach accomplishes so much more. Maybe you should take your own advise till you can speak with respect.



Idiot dialectic category: Non sequitur.




Do you post here under another user name? There is another guy that post mindless drivel just like this. He is usually babbling about demos though.



Twardo doesn't post mindless driv.......oh......wait, nevermind.:ph34r::D

ETA: I of course don't know Twardo, but from his posts I know that he has forgotten more about jumping than I'll ever know.:)
What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo

Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would just like to say that Sherri and Tim are some of the nicest people you will ever meet. They are GOOD people.

This accident is not indicative of Aerohio's general approach to safety. They are one of the safest dropzones out there. They take care of their planes very well.

I learned to jump there, and I also flew there. I've jumped and flown at several other dropzones across the country and I can tell you Aerohio is top notch.

Are they partly to blame for this TI's actions? Perhaps, I don't know, but if that is the case, it the fly in an otherwise pristine glass of chardonnay.

Calling Sherri a "fuckhead" as you did is despicable. Please think before you type. She is perhaps the nicest person I have ever met.

Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calling Sherri a "fuckhead" as you did is despicable. Please think before you type. She is perhaps the nicest person I have ever met.
Quote



Thank you for the input. I will continue to think before I type.

1) A tandem pass. fell out of the harness at their for-profit DZ and does not survive the fall . 2)They tell the courts we don't have any money and continue to operate their for profit DZ. 3) USPA(we) gets sued and settles. 4) Ted Strong gets his clock cleaned because the DZ fails to accept RESPONSOBILITY for the actions of it's employee/contractor/business.

So what do you call someone who has done so much for the sport then?

Peace, bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This accident is not indicative of Aerohio's general approach to safety. They are one of the safest dropzones out there. They take care of their planes very well.

I learned to jump there, and I also flew there. I've jumped and flown at several other dropzones across the country and I can tell you Aerohio is top notch.

Are they partly to blame for this TI's actions? Perhaps, I don't know, but if that is the case, it the fly in an otherwise pristine glass of chardonnay.

Calling Sherri a "fuckhead" as you did is despicable. Please think before you type. She is perhaps the nicest person I have ever met.

Allen



Try reading this post and the rest of that thread.
and also this.

Let's see - medical out of date, wrong type of simulation of engine out, unapproved canopy, what else?
oh yeah Roberts was on back to back loads on that day. Load 9 with an AFF and load 10 with McWilliams.
Roberts did not do a tandem recurrency jump the weekend before.
Kinda makes you wonder if they check anyone's paperwork.
Expend all their assets and go out of business, yet are still running the same DZ - what's up with that?

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I said nothing in any way shape or form to suggest that "we" sweep anything under a rug. I said that this forum is unequivocally not the place to have that discussion.



BULLSHIT! - where exactly should we be having this discussion? Maybe info like this should be posted VERY publicly. It might actually inspire the plaintiff or the lawyers to go after the right people.



What is it we're trying to prevent, bogus lawsuits or the fatalities that spawn them? Assuming the latter, very public discussion such as this one could be an effective part of achieving that goal. A whisper campaign would be significantly less likely to help.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Summary judgment is not trial. The court was basically saying there are issues of fact which a jury needs to consider to resolve the lawsuit. Depending on the extent of Strong's assets and liabilities the bankruptcy may effectively end the negligence litigation.



Does anyone have any data on outcomes of skydiving civil cases decided by a jury?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Let's see - medical out of date, wrong type of simulation of engine out, unapproved canopy, what else?



Jan,
Just for clarity, it is legal (in the FAA's eyes) to jump another main canopy in that system.

It just does not have the manufacturer's approval.

Cheers,
MEL
Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Does anyone have any data on outcomes of skydiving civil cases decided by a jury?



Most cases do not go to trial.
I can only think of two that did.
One was the recent SDA v SR. You can read about that elsewhere.
The other one was a case from a 1992 tandem accident.

This case was about the owner of a SE rig (Burton) that allowed a non-SE-rated TM (Norman) to do a tandem jump on a rig he was not rated on. The PAX died on landing. The TI lived. Defendants were Burton, Norman, SE and USPA.
USPA settled out of court and paid money to the plaintiff. My rumor mill shows up with $20K.
Norman settled out of court.
The settlement awarded by the jury was $525,000 for the plaintiff with the following attributions:
55% to Burton - the rig owner
40% to Norman - the TI
5% to SE
There were also jury awarded punitive damages against Burton for $125,000.

.
.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, I did not read the whole thread before this and I know almost nothing about the legal system, so this might be a dumb question but please at least try to be respectful. My question is directed at someone who actually knows what they are talking about, not a random commentator.

I got the whole thing about summary judgment and how it needs to be decided by a jury. Imagine that SE comes out of bankruptcy and the trial is decided by a jury, the waiver holds, SE is not negligent... etc. Can SE counter sue for legal fees? What would be the realistic chances of winning such a suit?

Am I allowed to call the guy that brought the suit a fucktard without getting banned? In any event, I would like to see him in some financial pain for the burden that he brought to an honest businessman. What part of "waive the right to sue" does he not fuckin understand???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In most jurisdictions, just because you post your opinion on DZ.com doesn't mean someone can subpoena you to testify as an expert witness in a skydiving case. Expert witnesses can only testify if they choose to do so voluntarily (and most only choose to do so only if paid a FAT fee;). Fact witnesses on the other hand can be compelled to testify (and get a couple of pennies for mileage:). If you have direct knowledge of facts (not opinions) relevant to the case, you can be forced to testify. If you don't you can't.

Not saying a negative post here can give a plaintiff some insight on standards of care in the industry, but I am saying that the plaintiff still needs to find an expert who will voluntarily testify.






Hi Chuck~

You're correct, though I didn't know that at the time.

The P.I. that was hired to 'locate' me for an interview was no doubt frustrated at my lack of response to his messages at various places I've either lived or been known to stay...he's the one that actually 'threatened' to subpoena me if I didn't contact his employer, the attorney in the matter.

Once I contacted the attorney, he did go through the wording of my post and ask for an in depth explanation...he was grasping at straws. He did tell me I would qualify as an expert witness on the matter and kinda eluded that he needed a hired gun to help make his case.

I'm not so I didn't.










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So please get a clue about how the real legal world works before you break wind through your mouth again.




And this approach accomplishes so much more. Maybe you should take your own advise till you can speak with respect.



Idiot dialectic category: Non sequitur.




Do you post here under another user name? There is another guy that post mindless drivel just like this. He is usually babbling about demos though.



Twardo doesn't post mindless driv.......oh......wait, nevermind.:ph34r::D

ETA: I of course don't know Twardo, but from his posts I know that he has forgotten more about jumping than I'll ever know.:)



The reference wasn't aimed at me, believe it or not there is ANOTHER demo jumping fossil that 'drivels' through here...on occasion! ;)










~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember a time before the tandems .

That's when I liked being a skydiver and skydiving.

We jumped 182's mostly. Occasionally a Beech 18 might frequent the dropzone.
That was a great day.

Go to a boogie and you could jump some of the great DC-3's. Maybe the HelioStallion would be there!
Definately there would be a campfire and an impromptu bbq at the end of the day, and just enough beer.

It may be my imagination but I seem to remember a USPA during that era which was more concerned with the safety of jumpers than the profits of the drop zones and the manufactureres.

Of course now it's about making 300 jumps in your first year and getting to altitude and back as quickly as possible, and quicker aircraft and smaller and smaller canopies to achieve those ends.
No one seems to remember that the journey is more important than the destination.

I remember a time.

Blues,
Cliff
2muchTruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...Am I allowed to call the guy that brought the suit a fucktard without getting banned? In any event, I would like to see him in some financial pain for the burden that he brought to an honest businessman. What part of "waive the right to sue" does he not fuckin understand??? ......



Really???

Maybe you should read the entire thread, attachments and all.

That's me being as respectful as possible under the circumstances ............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I remember a time before the tandems .

That's when I liked being a skydiver and skydiving.

We jumped 182's mostly. Occasionally a Beech 18 might frequent the dropzone.
That was a great day.



Your information says "In Sport : 8 years". I'm confused.

Just asking ...
"For you see, an airplane is an airplane. A landing area is a landing area. But a dropzone... a dropzone is the people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Am I allowed to call the guy that brought the suit a fucktard without getting banned? In any event, I would like to see him in some financial pain for the burden that he brought to an honest businessman. What part of "waive the right to sue" does he not fuckin understand???



A person is dead (a victim of negligence it possibly )and many people are bereaved. You cannot waive your right to sue someone for negligence in most civil Western societies. Either there is negligence or the isn't - the courts will settle this. Check your facts before opening your mouth and have some consideration for the victims here. What have you lost in this ordeal??
"Altitude is birthright to any individual who seeks it"

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


A person is dead (a victim of negligence it possibly )and many people are bereaved. You cannot waive your right to sue someone for negligence in most civil Western societies. Either there is negligence or the isn't - the courts will settle this. Check your facts before opening your mouth and have some consideration for the victims here. What have you lost in this ordeal??



Bullshit! The waiver is specifically for negligence. If there is no negligence there is no tort, waiver or not. The question here is whether there is criminal negligence. If there is not the waiver should protect all parties. This is important because criminality its responsibilities are not joint and several in nature and should only be visited upon the guilty.
Sadly good people are forced to spend their life savings demonstrating that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The deceased waived her right to sue. If she had survived somehow and tried to sue, the waiver might have held up. But, contrary to any verbiage on the document itself, you cannot waive anyone else's rights when you sign that waiver. (Isn't that the whole problem with allowing minors to skydive? They can't legally waiver themselves and their parents cannot waive their rights for them?)

I would also argue that the waiver is NOT specifially for negligence.

The real shame here is that the lawyers are going after the deepest pockets instead of the responsible parties. Actually, the real shame is that a woman died under entirely preventable circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think GaryP is right.

Waiver doesnt give much protection for negligence and IMO this is the way it should be. In western world you cannot give someone permission to kill you.

Anyways, Im stunned how everyone here is blaming the plaintiff or the lawyers etc..

If you think justice wont be served, blaim the justice system. The justice system should take care of justice being served. Not the plaintiff nor the lawyers..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think GaryP is right.

Waiver doesnt give much protection for negligence and IMO this is the way it should be. In western world you cannot give someone permission to kill you.

Anyways, Im stunned how everyone here is blaming the plaintiff or the lawyers etc..

If you think justice wont be served, blaim the justice system. The justice system should take care of justice being served. Not the plaintiff nor the lawyers..



How is justice served if a defendant has to spend $500,000 to defend himself even if he's done nothing wrong?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


How is justice served if a defendant has to spend $500,000 to defend himself even if he's done nothing wrong?



You need to re-read my post. Im not saying justice is being served.

Im saying that if justice is, or is not being served, it is the justice systems fault not the plaintiffs fault nor the lawyers fault etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think GaryP is right.

Waiver doesnt give much protection for negligence and IMO this is the way it should be. In western world you cannot give someone permission to kill you.

Anyways, Im stunned how everyone here is blaming the plaintiff or the lawyers etc..

If you think justice wont be served, blaim the justice system. The justice system should take care of justice being served. Not the plaintiff nor the lawyers..



OK, I only saw one post blaming the plaintiff, calling him a "fucktard" actually. Just one post, just one person. Certainly not "everyone".

And I don't recall ANY post "blaming" any lawyers. Its just a simple observation- the lawyers are going after the people they feel have the deepest pockets. That's their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think GaryP is right.

Waiver doesnt give much protection for negligence and IMO this is the way it should be. In western world you cannot give someone permission to kill you.

Anyways, Im stunned how everyone here is blaming the plaintiff or the lawyers etc..

If you think justice wont be served, blaim the justice system. The justice system should take care of justice being served. Not the plaintiff nor the lawyers..



OK, I only saw one post blaming the plaintiff, calling him a "fucktard" actually. Just one post, just one person. Certainly not "everyone".

And I don't recall ANY post "blaming" any lawyers. Its just a simple observation- the lawyers are going after the people they feel have the deepest pockets. That's their job.



Under the current legal theories of torts, that is true. But the trial lawyers lobby vigorously opposes any change to those theories.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minors don't have legal rights to waive.
Once they reach the age of majority they do, but then they are of course no longer minors.
I would be curious to see if Alabama or Nebraska have had issues with their legal age of majority given that it is 19. I think Mississippi is 20 or 21 so also curious.

In any event, I think an ambulance chaser attorney playing on the next of kin's emotions for financial gain is a huge area we could really use some tort reform on.

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.

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