Strong Lawsuit & 'Defense Fund'

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm not in the mood right now to bail out any more businesspeople who made bad decisions.

This incident was not due to any fault with Strong but rather a fault with the Intstructor.

How I interpreted AndyBoyd´s post was that he ment that basically strong should have predicted a lawsuit in general is a high possibility in the industry and not being prepared for this was the "bad decision". I could have interpreted his post wrong though...

[mpohl 1]

Out of curiosity, whatever happened legally in the case of the ever first-reported Involuntary Tandem Master-Passenger Separation (ITMPS)?

I know it occurred in Georgia.

Quote

Quote

I'm not in the mood right now to bail out any more businesspeople who made bad decisions.

This incident was not due to any fault with Strong but rather a fault with the Intstructor.

[squarecanopy 0]

Quote

Quote

Understand that my perspective is coming from seeing my wife almost fall out of an improperly adjusted harness on her tandem.

If I were you, I would go back and delete that comment. The lawyers are reading these threads.

Why would I be worried about stating a fact about an improperly adjusted harness? The manufacturer built it right. The TM did not adjust it properly. The negligence in the situation rested solely with the instructor. He was just lucky that day and only scared the living hell out of his passenger instead of dumping her out of her harness upon deployment.

Just burning a hole in the sky.....

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Out of curiosity, whatever happened legally in the case of the ever first-reported Involuntary Tandem Master-Passenger Separation (ITMPS)?

I know it occurred in Georgia.

If anything came out of that, I would have noticed. I could be wrong, but I don't think the family decided to sue.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[skyh2omedic 0]

IMO
I have a loved one who gets in a taxi.
The taxi driver drives fast, disobeys the law and misuses the car.
Results are a fatal wreck.
Should i sue the car manufacturer for the taxi driver disobeying the rules and operating the vehicle outside of the procedures required?
It's just another crazy example of our legal world.
Of course the plaintiff's attorney is hoping for a settlement. This is the legal form of extortion.
You pay me or i'll drive your legal cost to prohibitive amounts. Then it becomes a business decision.
Not a right or wrong question.
Accountability-no our legal system has only blurred those lines in order to profit more.
Unfortunatley this is our system. Maybe one day it will get better. Until then we just need to be thankful that gear manufacturers will make gear for us to play with.
Best of luck to Strong.

"You can't teach what you don't know and you can't lead where you won't go"

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

Should Strong have reasonably anticipated this type of screw-up by a TI?

No. Not in any way, shape or form. It's not their job to predict the stupidity or incompetence of people using their products. There is no such thing as an idiot-proof product.

Should a paper towel company be sued 'cause some guy used the cardboard roll at the center to facilitate a gerbil being shoved up his ass, then said gerbil is stuck thus resulting in pain & humiliation + medical costs....I think not.

Should Strong have reasonably anticipated that any semi-competent instructor would follow the manufacturer's recommendations for adjusting a harness?

Yes!!!

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[Andy9o8 0]

Tony, I understand how you feel, but with all due respect, what you posted is not consistent with product liability law in the US. I'm not going to be more detailed about it here because I'm rooting for Strong.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not in the mood right now to bail out any more businesspeople who made bad decisions.

This incident was not due to any fault with Strong but rather a fault with the Intstructor.

How I interpreted AndyBoyd´s post was that he ment that basically strong should have predicted a lawsuit in general is a high possibility in the industry and not being prepared for this was the "bad decision". I could have interpreted his post wrong though...

Yes, that was what I meant.

The poster who argued that Strong could or should have foreseen this particular sort of accident, and that this lack of foresight may cause Strong some problems in the lawsuit, interpreted my post in a way I hadn't anticipated. But, as far as I can tell (I am not a product liability attorney), this argument seems right on the money.

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Quote

IMO none of this is relative to the gear failure.

The 'failed gear' is/was approved by the FAA on more than one occasion, as a TSO'd system and as an experimental system for 20 years.++

Maybe they should be suing the FAA.....

I'm glad somebody brought up that point.

It's an interesting contradiction that manufacturers are required to have approval by the FAA in order to sell their products...yet the manufacturer is still expected to foresee and be held liable for any and all failures/misuse of their products that the TSO deemed 'safe'.

(Of course, all of this is speaking of legalities - I'm not sure that most people expect a manufacturer to anticipate every single misuse of their product that could occur.)

No matter how many times we build the better mousetrap, Nature keeps building the better idiot who can somehow manage to snap his finger in it.

Regardless, it's the sad legal reality in the U.S.:

• If you're an individual, you're NOT responsible for yourself, but you ARE responsible for everyone else.


• If you're a corporation, you're responsible for yourself AND you're responsible for everyone else.

Anyway, if the Y-strap improvement WAS to be taken as a tacit acknowledgement that the design was flawed, then common sense dictates that the FAA is equally responsible. But there's not much of that whole 'common sense' left around these parts, it seems...

Signatures are the new black.

[billvon 2,396]

>Anyway, if the Y-strap improvement WAS to be taken as a tacit
>acknowledgement that the design was flawed, then common sense dictates that
>the FAA is equally responsible.

1) You can't sue the government.

2) Even if you could, do we really want the FAA to take a bigger role in 'improving' skydiving gear?

[feuergnom 22]

Quote

1) You can't sue the government.

you have to be kidding, don't you?

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[councilman24 36]

Nope he isn't.

It's not quite as broad as Bill implies but in this case it pretty much is.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

Nope he isn't.

It's not quite as broad as Bill implies but in this case it pretty much is.

Exactly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it in cases like this is you can only sue the government if the government decides to allow you to sue them.

(It's a great system, so long as you're the government).

Signatures are the new black.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it in cases like this is you can only sue the government if the government decides to allow you to sue them.

Sovereign immunity generally protects the government from lawsuits. But there are some "exception" statutes, allowing lawsuits against the government in certain specifically-defined instances - for example, the Federal Tort Claims Act:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=federal+tort+claims+act&btnG=Google+Search&aq=0&oq=federal+tort&fp=6j_glr2Owws

[feuergnom 22]

thanks for clearing this up for me. this still seems very strange for me more with everybody filing lawsuits against anybody

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[kd5xb 1]

Wow, what a thread --

I don't have a lot of jumps, and haven't made any in quite a few years -- the nearest DZ is 200 miles or so away, and life just got in the way, I guess.

But I have a long memory. Back along about 1978 or 1979, I could clearly read "Strong" on that reserve after I landed. I used to claim membership in the "Bonus Days Club" over several of those experiences.

So, yeah, I'm going to send something to help with the lawsuit.

Earl Needham
Clovis, New Mexico USA

I'm a jumper. Even though I don't always have money for jumps, and may not ever own a rig again, I'll always be a jumper.

[TheCapt 7]

I've attached the decedant's estate's complaint and Strong's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment so you can see what is happening in real life. Note that the USPA was also sued.

[hallux 0]

The USPA will definately be sued, especially now that they have taken it upon themselves to have a bigger role in tandem certification. All they have done is open themselves to new liability.
The USPA should lobby for rights, and thats it. They shouldnt be getting to involved in "regulating" the sport. The government wouldnt regulate the sport as much as the USPA has.

[billvon 2,396]

>The USPA should lobby for rights, and thats it. They shouldnt be getting
>to involved in "regulating" the sport.

I am very glad that USPA has provided some uniform regulations for student training and basic skydiving safety procedures. We paid for those regulations with our blood, and they save a lot of skydivers.

>The government wouldnt regulate the sport as much as the USPA has.

If you think that, you have never flown an airplane.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Attachments: complaint.pdf (36.7 KB)

So they're suing the jump pilot too. I guess he's supposed to leave the cockpit controls and and go back into the cabin and check all the passenger tandem harnesses before he gets to jump run?

[skyjumpenfool 2]

Quote

So they're suing the jump pilot too.

It's about the money!! Sue everyone... you get a little from this person, and some more from another. It's never about right or wrong or who's responsible. It's always about the money.

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[spootch 0]

I wonder if pilots will have to be Strong rated to drop tandems in the future and then be required to give the whole load a gear check before boarding (and by some stretch of the imagination) prior to exit? Seriously, placing that much onus on a pilot only sets them up for a "sue everyone who was awake at the time" scenario such as this.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

I've attached the decedant's estate's complaint and Strong's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment so you can see what is happening in real life. Note that the USPA was also sued.

I’m intrigued by the argument that skydiving safety is preempted by federal law. As I understand the motion to dismiss uploaded by “TheCapt” (post 92 in this thread), Strong is arguing that since the federal government regulates skydiving, there can be no claim for injury under state law because that would essentially establish the possibility of 50 separate standards of care, all potentially in conflict with the national standard. Does anybody know if this is a common argument in skydiving liability cases, or is Strong raising a unique point here?

Quote

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and/or 12(c), Defendant S.E. Inc. dba Strong Enterprises (“Strong Enterprises”) moves the Court to dismiss all state law claims against it because the standard of care upon which the claims depend is preempted by federal law.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (the “FAA”) preempts the entire field of aviation safety. Skydiving is part of aviation, and the industry is governed by the Federal Aviation Administrator pursuant to his authority under the FAA. The Federal Register provides conclusive authority that the safety of tandem skydiving has been thoroughly regulated since at least 1983, and it is clear that the field has been occupied to the point that there is no room for
states to supplement it with their own standards of care. Additionally, any verdict establishing aviation safety standards for skydiving based on the application of Ohio law would necessarily conflict the federal regulatory effort and, consequently, is preempted on that basis as well.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Baksteen 84]

Quote

Quote

So they're suing the jump pilot too.

It's about the money!! Sue everyone... you get a little from this person, and some more from another. It's never about right or wrong or who's responsible

Quote

..or about the victim, it would seem.

If they wanted justice they'd have sued the TI.
Instead they go after the (perceived) cash-cows.

Pathetic.

edited to add link for any bloodsucker that might be reading this.

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[pilotdave 0]

In the motion to dismiss, page 9:

Quote

At least one court has found that skydiving is included in the FAA’s field preemption of air safety. In a case decided before Abdullah, but based on similar considerations, the District Court for the Northern District of New York stated:
the FAA views its authority as pervasive in the realm of parachute jumping. Even though [the Town ordinance regulating skydiving at local airports] and the FAA regulations do not conflict in this instance, that does not indicate that the Town has authority to regulate parachute jumping. (citation omitted). . . . The court defers to the agency's interpretation of its authority and concludes that federal law has preempted the regulation of parachute jumping.
Blue Sky Entertainment, Inc. v. Gardiner, 711 F. Supp. 678, 693 (D.N.Y. 1989); see also The Skydiving Center of Greater Washington, D.C., Inc. v. St. Mary’s County Airport Commission, 823 F. Supp. 1273 (D. Md. 1993) (finding that an attempt to prohibit skydiving at an airport was preempted by the Administration’s study of skydiving compatibility with other aeronautical activities at that airport).

Dave