JeffD 0 #26 April 30, 2004 Why would a "coach" (after an A license) or Vidiot get sued? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #27 April 30, 2004 Quote Are Jumpmasters, TM's, etc. employees of the dropzone? Almost never. To insulate themselves from the same risk, DZ's almost entirely hire instructors as independent contractors. If instructors were employees, the DZ is responsible for how they work. If isntructors are independent contractors, then the DZ does is not responsible for what they do. Most instructors are independent contractors, not employees. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #28 April 30, 2004 Quote Why would a "coach" (after an A license) or Vidiot get sued? If the either the coach or camera jumper hoses the exit, and colides with the student. He knocks the teeth out of the student, or worse. Student sues for costs of reconstructive dental surgery. Although, I think the biggest risk here is with first jump students, so a coach has fewer concerns then a camera jumper. For the record, I'm both a coach and a camera jumper. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #29 April 30, 2004 QuoteWhy would a "coach" (after an A license) or Vidiot get sued? Because there's no law against it, it costs the plaintiff almost nothing, and they might get lucky.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #30 April 30, 2004 >Why would a "coach" (after an A license) or Vidiot get sued? Because they might have the deepest pockets. Skydivers sue other skydivers nowadays. And if the video guy is an employee of the DZ, and was part of the "general pattern of negligence" (making up a phrase here) why not sue him? You might get some money out of him, and to some people, that's the bottom line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 May 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy would a "coach" (after an A license) or Vidiot get sued? Because there's no law against it, it costs the plaintiff almost nothing, and they might get lucky. This is typically the way things work. A plaintiff's attorney (even prosecutors in criminal cases) toss every cause of action and every defendant out there. Gradually, causes of action and defendants fall off, and you are left with what sticks. It's a pain in the ass for everyone involved (personally, I don't do it because it wastes money, and if I find out some other person was responsible, I'd amend the complaint and add them at that point). As far as the use of independent contractors, the DZ may not be able to escape liability that way. Certainly, the student doesn't always choose the instructor or coach. Often times, the dz makes the choice of who the coach is going to be. That can be troublesome. billvon is right about the string of negligence thought. Everyone who participated may have been in one way responsible. The attorneys try to figure that out. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itllclear 1 #32 May 2, 2004 "Asset Protection" is a whole specialty practice in law. I was employed as a "workout officer" for a Beverly HIlls bank for 20 years and learned a lot about the subject from the best crooks in the world, Century City attorneys! Their job was to make sure their clients didn't have to pay back the money that had been borrowed from the bank. First of all, a corporation will NOT protect a natural person for something that was done by that person. If Joe Driver, an employee of Acme Trucking, Inc., runs a red light and causes and accident, both Joe and the corporation will be liable, even if Joe had no ownership interest in the corporation. In your case, as a tandem master, both you as the natural person who made the error, and the corporation that employed you would have liability. Holding assets in a corporation won't necessarily work either. Remember, your stock in the corporation would be an asset subject to seizure and sale to satisfy a judgment. Suppose you own all the stock in the corporation that owns your house, and you pay rent to the corporation. If the stock is sold to satisfy a judgment, the new owners of the stock would have control of the corporation, and therefore, your house. The corporation could sell the house, keep the proceeds, and evict you. On the other hand, if you owned the house in your name, you could probably assert a homestead exemption that would save you from living in a tent on the DZ. Most of the asset protection strategies that really work involve having the assets held by a legal entity over which you have minimal control. The good news is that the asset would be proctected. The bad news is that whoever DOES have the majority interest of control of the legal entity could turn against you. You have to make the determination as to whether the benefit outweighs this risk. Bottom line, if you have enough assets to worry about, you should pay what it's worth to find a specialist in this area of law. Want a good recommendation? Call your bank's workout department, and ask them which attorney in town they hate most! Blue Skies! Harry"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there." "Your statement answered your question." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #33 May 2, 2004 QuoteMost instructors are independent contractors, not employees. Agreed. However, if a DZ supplies 'workers compensation insurance' to their jumpmasters and instructors, does this automatically classify them as having an employer/employee relationship? ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #34 May 2, 2004 After being invlved in a bullshit lawsuit for the last 9 months....allow me to amend what you said: 1) The defense attorney tries to figure out where to stick the blame...to get his client cleared. 2) The counsel for the plaintiff don't care where anything sticks so long as it sticks. After looking at some cases going on while I sitting in court it has really driven home just how much of a sue happy society we have become. It is sickening really. Judges are afraid of making rulings for fear of it being overturned by a higher court. Lawyers warping every good intent of a law, millions of dollars wasted and nothing getting accomplished. You got people out there who can't afford medical coverage but think having a lawyer is more important. God please reinstate the laws of common sense. Stupidity is supposed to painful.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
