Do DZ Liability Waivers Hurt the Sport?

[NotBond 0]

Quote

What hurts the sport are people who won't take 100% responsibility for what might happen to them if they throw themselves at the ground at a high rate of speed, trusting only some fabric and lines to save them.

The sad thing is that so many people apparently think that someone else should pay for their choices if shit should happen to them.

Nicely put. Ties into that parchute thread about whether you pack your own or not.

Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyways... - John Wayne

[normiss 620]

Best post in ALL of our waiver discussions.
booyah

SIUCC!

Life is risky, skydiving is life or death. Accept the risks as they are or go bowling.

[jumpwally 0]

Good God please !! Have you ever rented a car ? plane ticket ? Concert ticket ? Go make jumps ...quit with the junior Perry Mason shit !

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

We actually had a law student come to jump at our DZ, when they finished the waiver our manifest told them that they had missed a few.
Thats we she replied" I don't agree with those and will not give up those rights".
Manifest started handing back the money for the Tandem and they looked confused, basically told them if they were unwilling to sign they were unwilling to jump.
They ended up signing the waiver and had a good time.

We had a group of lawyers come to Skydive Atlanta once and did the same thing. They all sat in the corner in a circle and read through the waiver,scratching out things,didn't like this, didn't like that. It took them about 45 min to fill out their waiver,all the while the DZO was watching them. When they brought the waivers up to the counter Mike tore them all in half and handed the guy new ones and just stood and looked at him. I don't even think he said a word. I think all but one jumped that day.

I've started modifying contracts when appropriate.

Directv sent me a new hd dvr because they obsoleted the prior model in their switch to mp4. Told me it was free, arranged the installation (wouldn't permit me to do it myself), and I stayed home for it. At the end, after having destoyed my old lines and dish, the installer hands me a contract/receipt to sign and I see it included a 2 year programming commitment. I didn't agree to this, the installer is an independent contractor and I'm not going to hold him there while I call em up. So I crossed it out, signed it, and off he went.

so....there's nothing wrong with their actions, or the subsequent actions of the DZO.

[korbin 0]

That's exactly right. If it is an issue due to honest negligence on the DZ or TMs part, they should be held liable.

Skydivers who are licensed and jump fully understand the risks associated with it and wouldn't under normal circumstances take any action against a DZ for their own mistake. Or at least shouldn't.

[futuredivot 0]

I sat down with my wife when I was explaining the part of my will that says if anyone sues a dz, dzo, gear maker, on and on, on my behalf-my estate will be liquidated with the proceeds going to their defense (not worried about my wife-but you never know about other relatives with dollar signs in their eyes) I explained the waiver and told her that it couldn't be beat. I told her that the DZO could shoot me in the jump plane and toss my carcass out and she couldn't sue.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[LloydDobbler 2]

Quote

What hurts the sport are people who won't take 100% responsibility for what might happen to them if they throw themselves at the ground at a high rate of speed, trusting only some fabric and lines to save them.

The good thing about this thread is that those of us who do take 100% responsibility for our choice to jump out of an airplane can see who we don't want to jump with, and dzo's can see who they might not want jumping out of their airplanes.

The sad thing is that so many people apparently think that someone else should pay for their choices if shit should happen to them.

Well said.

In another time, it would be considered common sense that "If you throw yourself out of an airplane, you're taking a risk." Now, sadly, thanks to the U.S. judicial system, people expect ANY and ALL risks - with ANYTHING they do - to be footed by someone else. Personal responsibility is a last resort.

I blame the system...but I do *also* blame the lawyers. Like the guy above who advises his friends on it not being whether you can sue (answer: you can sue anyone, anytime), but rather how much you can get them to settle for. Who signs the waiver while scoffing at it, looking for ways he could attack it in court.

I saw no mention of him questioning the moral implications of such a way of thinking. It's a very Machiavellian attitude, to think only "What can I get?" without also asking "What should I get?" But sadly, that's the M.O. of our times.

That's my issue with lawyers (as a whole, though I'm sure there are some exceptions).

---

In response to those who are discussing how much one could get out of a settlement, I'd point out the following to you: A lot of dropzones, gear manufacturers, etc are uninsured. In fact, UPT (who makes Vector rigs) used to be incorporated as "The Uninsured Relative Workshop."

So if you have an attorney, you'd best hope they're willing to work for cheap, because oftentimes a DZ's assets aren't quite worth the money you'd spend on legal fees.

It's sad...but it's a necessary precaution for many. Heck, we might not even have planes to jump out of if the government hadn't gotten involved and added some liability protections for aircraft manufacturers, who were getting sued right and left back in the day when pilots kept flying themselves and their 25 year-old planes into mountains....

Signatures are the new black.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Quote

No, blame the lawyers!!

I always get in arguments with my buddies about who can sue and when. What my friends don't seem to get (and I do because I'm an attorney) is that the first question is not *can I win a lawsuit* but rather *do I have atleast a shred of an argument such that I can make it expensive for the other side*.

Ergo, blame the lawyers.


I did my AFF1 my second year of lawschool. I read the waiver and laughed to myself. No waiver is bulletprrof because certain things cannot be waived by contract. The waiver I had was so outrageous I figured (if need be) a good lawyer could get most of it severed.

The reality is that almost any provision of any waiver can be challenged in court. Challenge is often sufficient to get settlement leverage.

That is a shitty way to think and the reason I would not piss on a lawyer if they were on fire. If someone agrees to something, that should be it. It should not be,"Well, I'm going to sign this but if I get hurt I am going to sue anyway. People that think like this suck and the lawyer that encourages this suck more.

[stcyrjoe 0]

Im new to the sport and a waiver will not make me think twice about something a wanna do.

I finally realized what I was missing in my life!!!

[livendive 8]

Quote

Have you ever been to an amusement park? Ever look at the back of the ticket or the fine print?

Have you ever been to Lodi? The back of the jump ticket is their entire waiver.

Blues,
Dave

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

[BMFin 0]

I study law in Finland and in our legal system you can condone some things in beforehand, that otherwise would legimate you for recieving compensation.

However the contract must be very precise on what is this you event will condone for. (also there are lots of things you cannot condone anyone doing for you.. for an extreme example kill you) There are other factors also involved.

No way you could give your rights away in general to accept any wrong doing towards you in future.

This type of conrtract would be void. Though it doesnt necessarily mean it wouldnt be taken into account when judging the possible negligence together with the actual event.

I agree with anyone who thinks people should skydive on their own risk. This is self evident. It is however wrong to think that the waiver is somekind of magic piece of paper that grants the DZ to act as they please...

The main funtion of a waiver is to efficiently bring the hazards of the sport to the skydivers consciousness in beforehand. And this is ofcourse one effective way to deduct the DZ´s liability in normal skydiving accidents. Nothing more nothing less..

[GLIDEANGLE 1]

Trust me... I jump out of planes plenty. I readily sign DZ waviers.

I find it facinating how this thread has migrated. My question was about the behavior of DZOs. Most of the replies have diverged from that question. perhaps I should rephrase my question:

"If DZ liability waviers were magicly made invalid in the US, how would DZOs change thier operations to respond?"

I will save you the time to type the "Most would go out of business the very next day" reply. Let's assume that some would stay open. How would they change to diminsh the risks that they and thier customers face?

The follow-on question of course becomes...

"So what are the obstacles to making those risk reduction changes NOW?"

The choices we make have consequences, for us & for others!

[MajorDad 0]

This is a hypothetical question which does not reflect the reality of the system Dropzones are operating in.

As was stated earlier - open your own dropzone without using a waiver as a risk management tool if you so desire.

Knock yourself out.

Blue ones,

Major Dad
CSPA D-579

[justintime1983 0]

Uhh I never bothered to read the waiver, figured I was going whether I liked what it said or not. Why bother.

Sorry to continue the post in the direction it was going.

I keep telling my friends skydiving will fix all your problems, Im a fibber you just let go a minute at a time. Choose what to do with it.

[wildfan75 1]

Quote

"If DZ liability waviers were magicly made invalid in the US, how would DZOs change thier operations to respond?"

My guess is that we'd have about four dz in the US, and the topic of conversation among the jumpers would be "You wouldn't believe the day in court I had today!" or "So I was in the middle of doing this surgery and..."

Instructors would quit due to the risk of "losing it all". DZO's would close the doors to the risk of "losing it all". There is no amount of safety of gear, airplanes, training that can prevent the "one idiot" from closing the doors of a dz.

On the other hand, the selective process of telling someone "Sorry, skydiving is no for you" increases.

I have the same "last will and testament" thing as FutureDivot, and it was drafted and certified when I had about 12 jumps.

You can keep all of the people safe some of the time. And you can keep some of the people safe all of the time. But you can't keep all of the people safe all of the time. Humans error. And that's just life.

[speuci 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, blame the lawyers!!

I always get in arguments with my buddies about who can sue and when. What my friends don't seem to get (and I do because I'm an attorney) is that the first question is not *can I win a lawsuit* but rather *do I have atleast a shred of an argument such that I can make it expensive for the other side*.

Ergo, blame the lawyers.


I did my AFF1 my second year of lawschool. I read the waiver and laughed to myself. No waiver is bulletprrof because certain things cannot be waived by contract. The waiver I had was so outrageous I figured (if need be) a good lawyer could get most of it severed.

The reality is that almost any provision of any waiver can be challenged in court. Challenge is often sufficient to get settlement leverage.

That is a shitty way to think and the reason I would not piss on a lawyer if they were on fire. If someone agrees to something, that should be it. It should not be,"Well, I'm going to sign this but if I get hurt I am going to sue anyway. People that think like this suck and the lawyer that encourages this suck more.

Let me clarify, hopefully you don't all think I'm a schmuck yet.

I accept responsibility for my actions, however, of the multiple skydiving waivers I've seen, each one has overreached.

Overreaching is attempting to waive liability for 'gross negligence' or 'intentional conduct'. Under almost every state's laws, you can't waive these sorts of things because public policy prohibits it. Dropzone's need to maintain SOME level of liability exposure (in lawyer speak: internalize some costs) to make sure they install the adequate controls.

If I F@#$'d my own pack and screwed up my landing, my bad. If I rented gear as a student and it was packed incorrectly, THEIR BAD.

I've now jumped at several dropzones and seen several things which made me uncomfortable. I saw a rig jumped by an experienced guy which was the first pack attempt of a student. I've had a packer misroute the bridal on my own gear which might lead to a pilute chut in tow. Etc....

People should definately accept all responsibiltiies for their actions, however, dropzones should not attempt to extricate themselves from all liability because then they fail to take basic steps to mitigate high risks.

These egregious waiver provisions are what I laugh at when I sign waivers.

----

As to the OP's original question, business would continue as usual until an accident, at which time the DZO would probably get shut down. Same applies for instructors, they probably aren't to scared of the threat of liability since in my experience, most (regrattably) have few assets themselves and live paycheck to paycheck.

The likely result would be that only a few operations would remain... I think....

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

I saw a rig jumped by an experienced guy which was the first pack attempt of a student.

He should know better and do a thorough inspection of the gear and/or repack it. An experienced jumper should know how to pack so if chooses to let someone else pack for him, he's accepting the quality of that pack job. Period.

Quote

I've had a packer misroute the bridal on my own gear which might lead to a pilute chut in tow.

You pay a packer, you take your chances. As an experienced jumper, it's incumbent upon you to check a packer's work before you jump it. A bridle misroute is generally apparent with a good gear check. If this happened when you were still a student, it should have been caught by your instructors when they did a gear check (or by you as you were learning to do a gear check with them).

So far, you've given piss-poor examples of gross negligence or intentional conduct.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Baksteen 84]

Ah, but that's just the thing, innit?

If the DZ or manufacturer does *not* "attempt to waive gross negligence", these and any other example you care to think about will be filed under "gross/intentional negligence" by any attorney worth half the money they are paid.
After all, if you do not make risky stuff "as safe as possible" is that not automatically gross negligence?

That's why I agree with skydiving waivers, overreaching though they are.

OTOH I wonder if a determined attorney couldn't get the entire waiver dismissed if the waiver is too outrageous.

"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

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If I F@#$'d my own pack and screwed up my landing, my bad. If I rented gear as a student and it was packed incorrectly, THEIR BAD.

So you believe that every time a student has a malfunction the waiver is invalid. Every time a dz employee makes a mistake they should be hung out to dry.
I think you need to re-examine the line between negligence and gross negligence.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

After all, if you do not make risky stuff "as safe as possible" is that not automatically gross negligence?

No, it is not. This is the type of foolishness that the press engages in. If you want to be "as safe as possible" then do not leave the ground. Furthermore if you decide to leave the ground it should be with a parachute that has exactly one (test) jump on it, packed by the manufacturer's chief packer, and opened by 10 000' at the latest.
The wind will need to be between 5-7 mph and only a sea level dz will be "as safe as possible."
I used to smoke jump with a kevlar jump suit and caged motorcycle helmet; anything less is not "as safe as possible."

[Fast 0]

Quote

Trust me... I jump out of planes plenty. I readily sign DZ waviers.

I find it facinating how this thread has migrated. My question was about the behavior of DZOs. Most of the replies have diverged from that question. perhaps I should rephrase my question:

"If DZ liability waviers were magicly made invalid in the US, how would DZOs change thier operations to respond?"

I will save you the time to type the "Most would go out of business the very next day" reply. Let's assume that some would stay open. How would they change to diminsh the risks that they and thier customers face?

The follow-on question of course becomes...

"So what are the obstacles to making those risk reduction changes NOW?"

The short answer is that most dropzones would close their doors. The risk of liability and loss of what you have invested is too great. Even with a proper waiver, most dropzones can't afford a lawsuit.

The long and short of it is that most dropzones only have the planes and rigs. Maybe some property. Most DZOs had to pour everything they have into getting that stuff.

This wouldn't be a problem if every asshole out there didn't want to sue when they screwed up. That's the root evil in all this. Greedy people who are unwilling to accept personal responsibility and greedy lawyers trying to make a fast buck.

The worst part is you can't really just come out and say "I don't have anything to take, don't bother trying to sue me." Most places can't afford to have a lawsuit. It's just that simple. Waivers make it harder to get started on a suit. It helps prevent having to spend a ton of money on a defense. In the vast majority of cases where someone has sued a dropzone, it was the person who filed suit that caused the problem.

There is only so much we can do to prevent people from getting hurt, short of not letting them skydive.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[BMFin 0]

Quote

This wouldn't be a problem if every asshole out there didn't want to sue when they screwed up. That's the root evil in all this. Greedy people who are unwilling to accept personal responsibility and greedy lawyers trying to make a fast buck.

I disagree. It wouldn´t be a problem if the judicial system would not acknowledge these type of prosecutions.

That´s the "root evil" in this.

[danielcroft 2]

Mr. Chicken, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Egg. Mr. Egg, Mr. Chicken.

sigh

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Overreaching is attempting to waive liability for 'gross negligence' or 'intentional conduct'. Under almost every state's laws, you can't waive these sorts of things because public policy prohibits it. Dropzone's need to maintain SOME level of liability exposure (in lawyer speak: internalize some costs) to make sure they install the adequate controls.

If I F@#$'d my own pack and screwed up my landing, my bad. If I rented gear as a student and it was packed incorrectly, THEIR BAD.

Most forms of 'packed incorrectly' are well below the standard of gross negligence, and anyone who has taken the AFF1 training has been given the knowledge to handle the situations. Most involve cutting away.

Now if you throw the PC and a bunch of laundry comes out (Fandango), yeah, that might be over the line.

[Baksteen 84]

That's exactly my point.

"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