JSE 1
Recommended Posts
nerd137 0
> How financially capable is anyone defending a lawsuit?
Some are most certainly more capable than others.
You seem to be attacking my position as if I'm making the argument that this lawsuit is somehow a good thing. What have I said to give you that impression?
Regardless, you don't seem to know the answer to my question about Strong Enterprises' specific situation. While I agree a lawsuit like this may impact the entire skydiving marketplace, I think that's a separate (albeit related) topic.
> but saying ya won't [help] because you think they don't need any assistance is somewhat naive if you've worked in the industry at all.
I didn't say that. I'm very willing to help. But I personally would need more evidence that my help is needed than has been demonstrated here. You imply that you have experience within the parachute industry; I do not. Most of the statements made in this thread to encourage donations to SE have been highly rhetorical and emotionally angry. (e.g. implying that people who don't instantly see the NEED!! to donate are naive and insensitive.) Well, sorry, that's not enough.
Some are most certainly more capable than others.
You seem to be attacking my position as if I'm making the argument that this lawsuit is somehow a good thing. What have I said to give you that impression?
Regardless, you don't seem to know the answer to my question about Strong Enterprises' specific situation. While I agree a lawsuit like this may impact the entire skydiving marketplace, I think that's a separate (albeit related) topic.
> but saying ya won't [help] because you think they don't need any assistance is somewhat naive if you've worked in the industry at all.
I didn't say that. I'm very willing to help. But I personally would need more evidence that my help is needed than has been demonstrated here. You imply that you have experience within the parachute industry; I do not. Most of the statements made in this thread to encourage donations to SE have been highly rhetorical and emotionally angry. (e.g. implying that people who don't instantly see the NEED!! to donate are naive and insensitive.) Well, sorry, that's not enough.
Quote
Perhaps it was obvious that these rigs were improperly used, but if not, then maybe Strong should pay for failing to either educate, supervise, modify, or take some other action to make these safe.
In general manufacturers aren't responsible for the misuse of their products, though the gun industry had to get specific legislation for themselves. GM isn't accountable for drunk drivers or speeders. Ski resorts also have protections. But somehow ice ax or crampon makers (or scuba or jump gear makers) aren't so safe. Is the difference just the scale?
riggerrob 558
Strong Enterprises did a good job of educating users (tandem instructors) about tightening harnesses, and those procedures worked well for twenty-five or so years.
The problem is that a TI forgot to tighten a harness on a long, hot day.
There but for the grace of god go the rest of us.
Shortly after the Ohio accident, Bill Booth experimented with Y-straps for Sigmas. He even published a new set of instructions for adjusting Vector and Sigma student harnesses, but eventually concluded that existing harnesses and procedures work well enough.
As for the parasitic, scum-sucking, low-life lawyers making their livings off ... er gorging themselves ... on other people's misery ... my response cannot be repeated in polite company.
The real problem here is a flaw in the American legal system. The sad thing is that business practice is moving North. Just last month a Canadian Aircraft Maintenance Engineer was all stressed-out over getting dragged into a lawsuit over a balloon accident (many months after he had signed off some maintenance). He blamed the lawsuit on the "shotgun" response to a victim mentality.
Rob Warner
Strong Tandem Examiner
The problem is that a TI forgot to tighten a harness on a long, hot day.
There but for the grace of god go the rest of us.
Shortly after the Ohio accident, Bill Booth experimented with Y-straps for Sigmas. He even published a new set of instructions for adjusting Vector and Sigma student harnesses, but eventually concluded that existing harnesses and procedures work well enough.
As for the parasitic, scum-sucking, low-life lawyers making their livings off ... er gorging themselves ... on other people's misery ... my response cannot be repeated in polite company.
The real problem here is a flaw in the American legal system. The sad thing is that business practice is moving North. Just last month a Canadian Aircraft Maintenance Engineer was all stressed-out over getting dragged into a lawsuit over a balloon accident (many months after he had signed off some maintenance). He blamed the lawsuit on the "shotgun" response to a victim mentality.
Rob Warner
Strong Tandem Examiner
QuoteQuoteQuoteisn't this the same strong enterprises that just took on a $25 million military contract?
What has THAT got to do with a lawsuit on the sport side of the shop?
I'd be more willing to help a small company with assets to seize and no revenues than one with $25M in revenues that can fend for itself.
That is a pretty piss poor attitude; 25 million in revenue is not the same as having 25 Million in profit.
The fight they have is to put up with is what keeps the cost down. If every company just rolled over there would be no general aviation or skydiving because no one could afford it.
SO this one time at band camp.....
"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."
"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."
nerd137 0
QuoteHe blamed the lawsuit on the "shotgun" response to a victim mentality.
I think that's the real source of the problem: our cultural reluctance to take personal responsibility for our actions.
baronn 111
Here,here TK Good job. This was a tragedy anyway you look at it.The instructor has to be living in their on Hell. The Butcher's certainly didn't deserve this and of course, neither did Ted. Had to be have been a long series of mistakes that occured and allowed this. Goes to show, we all have to be looking out for each other. If someone had spoke up when they saw something weird, this might have been avoided. Seems that sometimes in our sport, we get real offended if someone ever says something about how anything is done. Might've made difference this time. Something to consider.
When a person dies due to negligence, a simple “sorry dude” doesn’t cut it in my book.
They have the right to sue.
They have the right to sue.
tkhayes 124
yes they have the right to sue. THey also have the RESPONSIBILITY to sue the correct parties who caused that negligence. But of course, they go after the perceived money, not the actual fault.
nerd137 0
QuoteWhen a person dies due to negligence, a simple “sorry dude” doesn’t cut it in my book.
They have the right to sue.
I take that back. They do not have the right to sue. The passenger signed a waiver forfeiting the right to sue if something like this should happen.
The incident that caused her death was an accident. It sucks, but she was made aware of the risks before she jumped and signed a waiver releasing anyone and everyone of all legal liability. And from legally idealistic standpoint that should be that.
I *think* that legally - negligence cannot be wavered. Which in turn leaves the TM liable. Which in turn leaves the gear manufacturer liable for not foolproofing their gear.
Bullshit ? Yes.
Reality ? unfortunately, in the US - Yes.
just some thoughts, no legal background
Bullshit ? Yes.
Reality ? unfortunately, in the US - Yes.
just some thoughts, no legal background
nerd137 0
> I *think* that legally - negligence cannot be wavered.
There are legal standards as to what can and cannot be waivered. However, they are not without ambiguity.
Regardless, I think the spirit of the waiver we all sign prior to skydiving strongly indicates that we accept the risk of death in the process of skydiving.
There are legal standards as to what can and cannot be waivered. However, they are not without ambiguity.
Regardless, I think the spirit of the waiver we all sign prior to skydiving strongly indicates that we accept the risk of death in the process of skydiving.
QuoteIs the system as good as it could be? Of course not, law is an imperfect system. Can it be better? Not obvious... every *improvement* probably just results in a rebalance of harms.
In this case the legal system might very well punish the development of safer products. As many posters has stated before, the Y-strap may be held against Strong in a courtroom, though I don't believe the Y-strap could solve the problem of instructor stupidity.
It's a known fact that lawsuits is a sentiment for foreign companies not to invest in American counterparts. Most European skydiving gear manufacturers stay out of the US market partly because of this reason. That must be a sign of a not so good system.
/Martin
speuci 0
QuoteMost European skydiving gear manufacturers stay out of the US market partly because of this reason. That must be a sign of a not so good system.
Are you also contending that European products are safer and better designed?
How about another view - non US manufacturers stay out of the market because they can get away with making crappier products and they don't have to internalize the harms they cause. Not saying anything about any non-US manufacturerers. To be honest, don't know anything about them, but I think all I see (excluding Cyprus) is US gear at the DZ.
Also - evidence rules exclude post-accident improvements, as mentioned numerous times.
QuoteWhen a person dies due to negligence, a simple “sorry dude” doesn’t cut it in my book.
They have the right to sue.
REALLY???? A narrow minded response in my view. The misuse of the Strong tandem harness is NOT Ted Strong's fault, and just because the TM has no money and Ted Strong does is not justification for suing him.
Understand that my perspective is coming from seeing my wife almost fall out of an improperly adjusted harness on her tandem. If that in fact had occured, I would not have sued the manufacturer, because it was obvious what happened and it was TM error.
If someone's survivors are going to sue even though the signed waiver is plain that even in the event of negligence the tandem student accepts the fact that skydiving is inherently dangerous and agrees not to sue, then they should at least have to, by law, sue the negligent party, not the "richest" party they can find that has some modicum of attachment to the situation.
Just burning a hole in the sky.....
QuoteQuoteMost European skydiving gear manufacturers stay out of the US market partly because of this reason. That must be a sign of a not so good system.
Are you also contending that European products are safer and better designed?
How about another view - non US manufacturers stay out of the market because they can get away with making crappier products and they don't have to internalize the harms they cause. Not saying anything about any non-US manufacturerers. To be honest, don't know anything about them, but I think all I see (excluding Cyprus) is US gear at the DZ.
Also - evidence rules exclude post-accident improvements, as mentioned numerous times.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I read it as the US Legal system has problems and that's why they stay out, not that their gear is any better than ours...
-----------------------
Roger "Ramjet" Clark
FB# 271, SCR 3245, SCS 1519
ozzy13 0
I disagree. Yes she sighed a waiver. She also paid for a service. That service was done incorrect. Whether they should be able to sue the manufacture or not. I think they should not.
In this case the DZ closed up shop if Im correct. Not sure what the instructor is doing but thats who this case should involve.
Like someone said before they go for the deep packets and that's sad. Thats why you cant own anything these days. If you have nothing they cant get nothing from you.
In this case the DZ closed up shop if Im correct. Not sure what the instructor is doing but thats who this case should involve.
Like someone said before they go for the deep packets and that's sad. Thats why you cant own anything these days. If you have nothing they cant get nothing from you.
Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!
QuoteAre you also contending that European products are safer and better designed?
No not at all, but they often adhere to the same standards. Ie TSO. I would say that in this market US products or generally of good quality but I don't believe that foreign products are unsafe.
QuoteHow about another view - non US manufacturers stay out of the market because they can get away with making crappier products and they don't have to internalize the harms they cause. Not saying anything about any non-US manufacturerers. To be honest, don't know anything about them, but I think all I see (excluding Cyprus) is US gear at the DZ.
But they don't. It seems as if the sentiment to make as good a product as possible is already there on the open market. The market most often needs regulation but punitative punishment in lawsuits is not a good way.
QuoteAlso - evidence rules exclude post-accident improvements, as mentioned numerous times.
Very pleased to here that.
/Martin
nerd137 0
> I disagree. Yes she sighed a waiver. She also paid for a service. That service was done incorrect.
Then what is the point of a waiver?
Then what is the point of a waiver?
PhreeZone 14
QuoteIn this case the DZ closed up shop if Im correct. Not sure what the instructor is doing but thats who this case should involve.
DZ is still open this year, not sure what is going on with behind the scenes stuff but the DZ has been flying loads this spring already.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
QuoteUnderstand 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.
Quote
If I were you, I would go back and delete that comment. The lawyers are reading these threads.
Quoting it in your post won't help.
Dave
Not necessarily. Evidence rules often restrict the introduction of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, fault, or defect. See Federal Rules of Evidence 407. I have no idea where this case is pending or what rules apply, however.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites