Is someone who is selling a canopy responsible for who it is sold to?

[funks 1]

This is in response to one of the most recent incident posts...When i say responsible i mean is it their job to make sure the person who is buying their canopy is experienced enough to fly it.....curious as to what everyones thoughts are....

greenies...if this doesnt belong here please feel free to move it...

[kelel01 1]

I'd have to say yes, mostly. But if the person they are selling it to is not upfront, there may be little they can do about it. For instance, selling my Sabre 170, I'm probably not gonna do a thorough check on the person's skills and such, but if I had a VX for sale, I'm going to make damn certain that that person is ready to fly that canopy. For my canopy, I think I would ask exit weight and number of jumps, then leave it at that. With a VX, I'd call their DZO, their instructors, their S&TA, their rigger, their mother, brother, cousin, and hairdresser before selling it.

Just my $0.02. *shrug*

Kelly

[dragon2 0]

I kinda FEEL responsible... But I'm also very big on personal responsibility. Since a person who wants a particular canopy can probably both buy it and jump it somewhere, what can you do...
I think it also depends on who's doing the selling: my local rigger would probably not sell me a Velocity, knowing me. Somebody on the internet, just might. Who's responsible? I am!

I've sold my Safire (126 sqft) to a girl who I'm sure can handle the canopy. I wouldn't have sold it to her, otherwise. I didn't really know her, tho, so I had to mostly go on what she told me. But if somebody misrepresents themselves * shrug *
my responsibility ends right there...

I did watch her first landing with it tho

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

IMO, no they are not. If one knows a person to be unqualified for a particular canopy, and knows they are putting them in harms way (ie, selling a XAOS to someone with 50 jumps), then that is one thing... but, reasonably speaking, if a person is looking to buy a canopy, then they must know that their dz will allow them to jump it, and in that case, who am I to not sell it to them? I am getting ready to sell a canopy, and i'm not calling anyone's dz or mommy to ask if they're ready to buy it, either. If I don't know their background, I will make them aware of the canopy's twitchiness and diving ability, but that's it. We're all adults here. And, in the end, if they buy the canopy and their dz won't let them jump it, it isn't my problem. Nor is it my problem if their dz is ok with it and they decide to pull a stupid move under it. Furthermore, stupid moves can be performed under any canopy with many results being close to the same, so even if you interview someone and they are seemingly ready for the canopy, shit can still go wrong. 10 jumps or 1000 jumps, people still break bones, sprain things, and even die. But, of course, if I _know_ that someone is flying a 170 square, i'd be likely to question their motives for buying.

jmo, tho... and everyone's will vary.
Angela.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Furthermore, stupid moves can be performed under any canopy with many results being close to the same

I disagree. Try a stupid move w/ a Sabre 230, then try the exact same stupid move with my old VX-60. Let me know how it turns out. I think you'll find a significant difference.

Derek

[ianmdrennan 2]

I've always done my homework when selling a canopy to someone. If something seemed suspect I'd call the DZO if necessary to verify the jumpers claims.

Other than that if someone really wants to get a hold of something, they will. I don't feel responsible for selling them gear if they got it under false pretenses, but I do feel obligated to do a little homework on them before just shipping it off.

In the end I do what I consider reasonable. No doubt someone could pull the wool over my eyes, but I don't feel accountable for that.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, stupid moves can be performed under any canopy with many results being close to the same

I disagree. Try a stupid move w/ a Sabre 230, then try the exact same stupid move with my old VX-60. Let me know how it turns out. I think you'll find a significant difference.

Derek

ok, so, at some point, there are signifigant differences.

Still, I think that everyone needs to hold themselves accountable. Holding someone accountable for selling someone a canopy is probably ridiculous in many situations. Now, selling your 60sf canopy is probably a little different than selling a 136 being there are faaaar fewer people even nearly qualified to fly the 60sf canopy.

Angela.

[kelel01 1]

There is one other thing to consider here . . . CYA (covering your ass). If you don't at least attempt to verify that the person to whom you are selling your canopy is able to fly that canopy, and something happens to them, do you really think that you'll be able to say "I don't care" when 30 of his friends are holding you even partially responsible when said jumper dies or gets seriously injured? Because if you can, I'm not sure that you're human. You should feel some sense of responsibility in that.

Kelly

[skybytch 259]

Quote

When i say responsible i mean is it their job to make sure the person who is buying their canopy is experienced enough to fly it.

Yes. Whether it's new or used.

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Furthermore, I wonder how many people go through this trouble with selling containers. Containers are obviously meant to hold certain sized reserves and mains, and not only can one be unqualified to jump a certain sized main, but what about those who are very experienced but heavy and would overload the reserve that would fit in the container? I'm sure that is rarely, if ever, taken into account. At some point people need to be held accountable for themselves.
What about selling weights, a weight belt that holds 20 pounds can add signifigantly to someone's w/l, do you interview people about how many jumps they have under their canopy before selling them weights?

Accountablilty, people!! It's on you. There are not enough volunteer babysitters in skydiving to keep everyone in check... (and many don't want to be babysat), that is the point i'm really trying to make here.

Angela.

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, stupid moves can be performed under any canopy with many results being close to the same

I disagree. Try a stupid move w/ a Sabre 230, then try the exact same stupid move with my old VX-60. Let me know how it turns out. I think you'll find a significant difference.

Derek

I think high-performance canopies only make it easier to do stupid moves.

Anyony can take three wraps on a Sabre 230 and wad it into a pile of crap at 100 feet.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This is in response to one of the most recent incident posts...When i say responsible i mean is it their job to make sure the person who is buying their canopy is experienced enough to fly it.....curious as to what everyones thoughts are....

It's neither their job nor their responsibility. Are threy really qualified to make that call? I do think they should act as if they were selling it to a friend and make a good faith estimation that the buyer will be ok. IOW, they shouldn't be selling anything to me that doesn't start with the number 2.

At that point the buyer is wholely responsible for the selection. If I were to misrepresent my experience or my exit weight over the phone, how could the seller know?

The two poll choices are a bit too extreme for my tastes. I think the scale should be 80% on the side of the buyer being responsible.

[diablopilot 2]

Legally? No.

Morally? Depends on your personal Morals. For me, yes.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[bbarnhouse 0]

Every canopy I have sold to a private party I have asked questions that I could verify.
I have turned people down due to lack of experience for a particular canopy. My choice, my conscience.
I think we all need to be responsible skydivers when selling used gear. The idea is simple.. we want everyone to be able to jump well into the POPS years.

[skyyhi 0]

My choice is the same as Diablo Pilot. Morally, I believe it is my responsibility to do some checking. I am selling a canopy right now and refused to sell it to someone because they could not tell me where they jump. Maybe I am being over cautious here but if I read an incident report where this guy had my canopy and went in, I would definitely feel morally responsible. . .

________________________________________
Take risks not to escape life… but to prevent life from escaping. ~ A bumper sticker at the DZ
FGF #6
Darcy

[SkiD_PL8 0]

I think they are responsible to an extent yes. If someone is selling a high performance canopy I would expect them to simply ask the right questions to that person. No need to consult their DZO or anything like that. If a person felt the need to lie to get a canopy that was beyond their skills to fly they would find one somewhere that would sell it to them anyway.

Greenie in training.

[kelel01 1]

Quote

If a person felt the need to lie to get a canopy that was beyond their skills to fly they would find one somewhere that would sell it to them anyway.

But why let it be you? Just check with their S&TA. I know someone who wanted to purchase a Sabre2 135 with app. 80 jumps, and the seller said that he would need to speak with his S&TA. I don't think that's too much trouble to possibly prevent a catastrophe.

Kelly

[vdschoor 0]

For me morally yes.

I would not sell a canopy to someone with questionable experience (even though I consider myself low experience when it comes to canopies)

I have only sold one set of gear, but I went through a rigger that new the jumper. This way we both got what we wanted, the guy got gear that his rigger approved as beeing good gear, and on top of that he was getting gear he was ready for.


Iwan

[ladyskydiver 0]

Morally, yes. At the same time, there is personal responsibility.

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[ryoder 1,384]

No.

A parachute is not a controlled substance. Thinking that harassing sellers of small canopies will keep small canopies out of the hands of the inexperienced, is as naive as believing that anti-drug laws will keep drugs out of the hands of users, or that gun-control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And what would we do to non-jumpers who happen to come into posession of parachute gear? Do we start harrassing pawn-shop owners who happen to sell a parachute?

Is a car dealer responsible for deciding whether the rich kid with $250,000 in his pocket is really experienced enough to buy that Ferrari?

I have no problem with a DZO setting requirements about what is an appropriate WL, but trying to make it a seller's responsibility to do background checks on a jumper's experience and skill is just plain dumb.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jdfreefly 1]

I didn't vote. What I feel wasn't there.

If I decide to sell my canopy to some one, I will make a serious effort to find out if they are ready for it. That is my decision.

If someone else doesn't feel the same level of responsibility, that is theirs.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[skygod7777 0]

i would say yes and no.

in the fact they should try to make sure the jumper is able to fly the canopy they want to buy.

but also, they person they are selling it to could just lie to them. like my buddy eddie did when he bought his vengence 97 when he had 95 jumps (loading it at like 1.7). he also didn't tell us that he had the canopy (he hooked it up at home, and brought his rig packed to the dz).

later

[GravityGirl 0]

Hmmm. That sounds familiar. I'm a stalker seller. I call both USPA and the DZO or S&TA if I sell a very high performance canopy out of state, or if I don't know the jumper myself.

But that's only because I like to sleep at night.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[rehmwa 2]

Not responsible at all.

That said, on my last two sales I checked with the buyer's local S&TA anyway to see if they were ready for those canopies. I also shipped the gear for inspection directly to their DZ or instructor instead of the buyer, where I did expect those person's who "have an official role" in determing whether the buyer was ready for that canopy to make those recommendations to the buyer. It's also safer to have a trusted person handling the gear so I don't get ripped off.

So I mean: if I choose to be responsible in who I sell gear to, that's my personal choice. But establishing an expectation or rule that everyone makes the same choice I do is wasteful and stupid and intrusive.

If an idiot wants something they aren't ready for, then in the end it's always their responsibility - 100%.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mr2mk1g 10]

First let’s just ignore any potential waivers that may or may not have been signed or cover such a sale. That would introduce a different argument.

I think there are circumstances where the courts might consider it appropriate for a duty of care to exist. High risk examples may include where the seller is the buyer’s instructor, or perhaps even AN instructor. There could also be a duty of care where the seller is a DZ shop or equipment dealership, a rigger or any of the DZ staff. At lower risk would be someone who’s advice could normally be relied upon (a class that could potentially include any relatively experienced jumper). It really depends on where the court wants to put the bar… it’s difficult to second-guess, as the courts can be quite iritic when faced with something as far from their understanding as skydiving.

Remoteness also factors into it. There aren’t that many steps to the chain of buy canopy – jump canopy – hurt yourself. It’s obvious to a seller that if they sell the 30 jump wonder a sub 100 cross braced canopy there’s a good chance they’re gonna hurt themselves. I would think that this allows the vendor to be “close enough” to the buyer to satisfy this requirement.

There remains only the possibility that the court may consider there to be a good reason why there should not be a duty of care in this situation. This may be because it’s the buyers own decision what he jumps the canopy, or there is no guarantee that they would be safe on a bigger canopy. A court may even conclude that such a ruling could effectively shut down the canopy market and that on policy grounds there should be no duty.

Whether or not a duty of care exists would probably be one of the greatest hurdles in any such litigation. In the UK there is also a requirement that the imposition of a new duty such as this be “fair just and reasonable”. This may well cause a significant problem… is it really reasonable to impose that sort of responsibility on a vendor? I don’t know what the precise wording of US law is but I would imagine it takes a broadly similar stance.

Should a court find that a duty of care exists, then selling something wholly unsuitable for the buyer’s level of experience could easily be a breach of that duty of care. If there’s injury and that injury can be shown to be a result of the breach (in this instance this may not be that easy – eg: it could be argued that the injury is due to their mistake as opposed to due to the canopy on which they made that mistake) then there could easily be legal liability.

The big points that would cause any claimant’s difficulty are the concept that the canopy may represent an obvious risk, of which you have no duty to warn (after all it is obvious… but is a VX 90 obviously dangerous to a 30 jump wonder...?) and the concept of volenti where the claimant voluntarily accepts the risk of injury when using the canopy (no body asked them to jump it, it was their choice) – a staple concept of skydiving and sports legality in general.

I’m by no means saying it’s a legally clear-cut situation because it’s not; but I would defiantly say there are arguments open to any potential claimants out there. If someone dies in this situation, and there is money to go after (often not the case in this sport) then I can foresee a family starting an action. In fact, I’d put money on it happening sooner or later… just as where victims families go after firearms manufacturers. Now whether or not they’d win their claim is another question all together…

My answer to the question would therefore be: Yes, there [I]could[/I] be legal liability for the vendor… no one (to my knowledge) has yet tested that question to find out.

I must point out that this is my take on the situation from over the pond and is based solely on UK law. Whilst our two legal systems have a great many commonalities, my points may or may not stand for an action within the US.