Make sure you READ the waiver!

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

So why would I sign the waiver? Cause if I want to jump I have no choice, obviously. I mean I don't want to come across as someone looking to sue a DZ. I'm just saying it's not out of the question if they purposely cause an injur

Exactly. I consider parts of the waiver not that different then a Ford dealership asking for my first grandson when I go to buy a car. If I want the car, I'll sign the contract knowing full well its unenforcable.

Generally though, I do understand and respect the waiver, and understand the risks that I take. My concerns are pretty much in line with what the waiver wouldn't cover anyways, such as criminal or truely gross negligence. I choose who I do business with in this sport to avoid the issue altogeather. My DZ has consistently made good choices, which is part of the reason they haven't had a serious accident involving jumpers in 10 years. The likelihood of them being involved in gross negligence is pretty slim, I think.

To a large degree, this discussion is moot. Anyone with health insurance largely gave up the right NOT to sue when they bought the insurance. If you get busted up badly the insurance company will sue on your behalf, and there's very little you'll be able to do to stop them. Of course they'll be bound by the agreements you signed, but as discussed "waivers" are not bulletproof.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Nightingale 0]

BUT-

You sign the waiver in good faith that the dropzone will do their part. It is reasonable to believe that the dropzone will be providing their students with properly maintained equipment.

Should the dropzone do their part and do everything reasonable to keep their students safe, of course I wouldn't sue.

However, if they gave me equipment that they knew was faulty, and I had no way of knowing that, hell yes, I'd sue.

[pilotdave 0]

See I think this is a gray area (as if anything isn't). Define faulty equipment. If the reserve has a lineover, was it faulty equipment? If the gear has been properly maintained, but is old and clearly not the best (ie safest) gear available, is it faulty? For example, what if an FXC misfire causes an entaglement. We all know the cypres is better. Were they at fault for giving you inferior equipment? Or do you draw the line at the really bad stuff like when they pack laundry in the reserve compartment but seal it and sign off a repack on the reserve card?

Dave

[Nightingale 0]

well, I would say gross negligence would be knowingly packing a reserve with a hole the size of a watermelon in it.

however, the interpretation is up to the jury to decide. Its also up to you to decide if you want to risk it, because if you lose, you're paying the DZ's legal bills as well as your own (its in the waiver!)

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

The onus is on the airline to make it clear _beforehand_ what risks your taking. Once you know and accept the risks, the airline has done its job.

Should skydivers be alright with the standard waiver saying that ANYTHING can go wrong? In other words, I've got no problem is the waiver states certain things that I cant sue for. I definitely wont sue for any problems with my own equipment, any problems with their properly maintained equipment, problems with their properly maintained aircraft, etc. But the waiver says if I want to jump there, ANYTHING might happen. There is no guarantee their equipment or aircraft is well maintained. There is no guarantee that their staff has the proper experience to be doing what they're doing. There's no guarantee that the pilot isn't drunk or high. Etc. If they'll make those guarantees to me, I'll guarantee them (for real
But I simply don't worry about it. I'm 99.9999% sure that I will keep my word and not sue. I'll never have a reason to.

But how come we're supposed to be ok with those waivers?

Dave

[webracer 0]

These waivers do hold up well in court, relatively.
The problem is that you cannot sign away your rights if gross negligence is involved. The waivers mostly ensure that if all other things are normal, you cannot sue.
If the DZO neglects the plane, and hides that fact from the skydivers (also the FAA), you can sue, and will probably win. Problem is that you can't get blood out of a turnip, and most DZOs have the business (actually conglomerate of businesses) set up like a turnip.
I'd only sue if they misled me unfairly or lied to me in order to make a profit.
In these cases, the waiver might as well be toilet paper. You can put whatever you want in the waiver but that doesn't mean a judge has to uphold it. It still follows precedent and general rules (and practices) of law.

Troy

I am now free to exercise my downward mobility.

[pilotdave 0]

Leaving anything to a jury to decide scares me. The Precision case is the perfect example. I think a typical jury would see allowing someone to jump out of a plane as gross negligence.

Dave

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

The Precision case is the perfect example.

The Precision case is the worst possible example, ever. They didn't even bother to defend themselves, how could the jury do anything but award huge damages?

No arguments were presented in opposition, so none were considered. The only arguments considered where the ones presented. How on earth could you expec the jury to decide anything different, nobody even suggested anything!

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

You sign the waiver in good faith that the dropzone will do their part. It is reasonable to believe that the dropzone will be providing their students with properly maintained equipment.

No I don't, and no I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

It is my responsibility to check out any and all possible risks prior to jumping. That I choose not to investigate the risk of improperly maintained aircraft or gear does not absolve me of the responsibility for it.

I choose to jump out of airplanes with full knowledge of the risks I am taking. All the risks. Even - and most especially - the ones I can't control.

[Keith 0]

Think before you post. Read the waiver before you sign. Practice your emergency procedures. The next thing will be "learn to pack your own rig." What ever happened to the good ol' days when responsibility was someone else's problem.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[billvon 2,400]

>You sign the waiver in good faith that the dropzone will do their part.

You sign it in good faith that what the waiver says is correct, and it says that you can be injured or killed by the dropzone's carelessness or negligence. You can assume whatever you want, but you signed your name to a document that said the DZ may NOT do their part.

>It is reasonable to believe that the dropzone will be providing
>their students with properly maintained equipment.

The waiver says otherwise.

>However, if they gave me equipment that they knew was faulty, and
>I had no way of knowing that, hell yes, I'd sue.

Then why did you agree not to?

[billvon 2,400]

>If they'll make those guarantees to me, I'll guarantee them (for
>real ) that I won't sue.

So your first guarantee was false? Why would your second one not be?

>But how come we're supposed to be ok with those waivers?

Because you freely signed it, which means you're OK with it. That's the definition of what signing something means. I think a person's word still means something.

[Nightingale 0]

I didn't.

I had a lawyer read over the waiver and tell me exactly what I was signing before I signed it, both what it said and what it actually MEANT. Perris was happy to fax it over to me to look it over beforehand.

I can't sue for negligence. That's what it says. Ok. I won't. I probably wouldn't win anyway, so why bother?

I can, however, sue for GROSS negligence, which is a very different thing. The waiver says "negligence" not "gross negligence", which, legally speaking, are two entirely different things.

[billvon 2,400]

>I'd only sue if they misled me unfairly or lied to me in order to make
>a profit.

Even though you signed a waiver that said you wouldn't? How do you inform people which of your signatures is false and which is true, or do you just mislead them into thinking that signing something means you really do agree to it?

[billvon 2,400]

>I had a lawyer read over the waiver and tell me exactly what I was signing before I signed it . . .

You didn't understand this?
----------------------------------
I know and understand the scope,
nature and extent of the risks involved in the activities covered by
this Agreement and that some dangers cannot be foreseen. I
understand that these risks include, but are not limited to:
equipment malfunction or failure to function; defective or
negligent design or manufacture of equipment, improper or
negligent parachute packing or assembly; improper or negligent
operation or use of the equipment; carelessness of negligence of
skydivers/parachutists, instructors, JumpMasters, pilots or ground
crew; improper or negligent instruction or supervision. I
voluntarily, freely, and expressly choose to incur all risks
associated with the activities covered by this agreement,
understanding that those risks may include bodily and personal
injury, damage to property, disfigurement or death. I voluntarily
and freely choose to incur such risks and take responsibility
therefore.
----------------------------

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I have stated in my will to my family, than if I were to die skydiving, that they are not to sue anyone associated with the DZ, the gear manufacturers, or anyone else they can think of. I have told them over and over again, I understand the risk that I am taking. Hopefully they will abide by my wish if I do die skydiving.

Ditto.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

The waiver says "negligence" not "gross negligence", which, legally speaking, are two entirely different things.

You're talking "legally." I don't believe that "legally" is the issue here.

I don't care whether I have a "legal" right to sue or not... not gonna do it. No matter how fucked up I am or who's "fault" it may or may not have been that I am fucked up.

But then again, I couldn't live with myself knowing that my actions (ie a lawsuit) fucked up the lives of so many of my friends (ie people I'd be suing).

[Nightingale 0]

what I understand is this:

the waiver is a legal document. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the terms used in said document are using the legal definitions thereof.

legally, negligence and gross negligence are two different things.

the waiver says I can't sue for negligence. And I won't.

it does not, however, say that I cannot sue for gross negligence, which is a different thing entirely.


The legal definitions:

"Negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would use under similar circumstances; it is the doing of some act which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under the circumstances or failure to do what a person of ordinary prudence would have done under similar circumstances. Conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others is unreasonable risk of harm; it is a departure from the conduct expectable of a reasonably prudent person under like circumstances."
Negligence is characterized by the failure to act with the degree of care ordinarily expected of the average person.


"Gross negligence" is sometimes compared with "willful and wanton misconduct," and involves an act or omission in reckless disregard of the consequences affecting the life or property of another.

a different example:

Suppose a public riding facility or horse owner has carelessly forgotten to adjust a horse’s cinch before sending him out on the first ride of the day. If the saddle slips and the rider is injured, that facility or owner will probably be found negligent.

However, if a facility or horse owner saddles a horse with broken cinches or girth straps, knowing the equipment could fail at any time, that facility or horse owner will likely be found to have committed acts of gross negligence when the equipment breaks and injures the rider.



edited cause I can't spell.

[Nightingale 0]

of course "legally" is the issue. you're signing a legal document, and are bound by what that document says. the document does NOT say that you will not sue the DZ under any circumstances. Should you CHOOSE not to sue for circumstances not excluded by the waiver, that is your choice.

[Romolus 0]

Well when you have read and sign the thing it is legally binding, at least in denmark. It has been proven i court. A guy was doing a tandem when the main malfunctioned. Something went wrong a the tandem master pulled is handels incorrect. I can't remember the hole story.. But sadly the tandem master lost his life but the passenger lived whit minor injuries. He tryed to sue the club but lost do the thing he signed.

[Nightingale 0]

sure! its legally binding here too. What you're citing is not a case of gross negligence, and maybe not even negligence, depending on the details. The waiver covers the DZ in cases of negligence and in cases of accidents.

[AndyMan 7]

I see it the other way.

Someone who displays gross or criminal negligence is not worthy of being a friend, nor do I have any sympathy for them.

You need to understand what Gross Negligence means. It doesn't mean picking the wrong spot.

It could mean somebody orders a rig from a gear retailer, and instead of installing that new PDR, the dealer chooses instead to install a 1927 silk round thats been half eaten by moths, meanwhile charging for the new PDR and telling the jumper he got the new one. The jumper would have no reason to question the rigger seal, nor is examining the gear customary.

Clearly that case would be criminal negligence. When the jumper goes in, I'd be all for both a criminal and civil trial against the rigger. First lock him up, then take his house.

It could mean the airplane owner is too cheap to buy LL100, and instead chooses to drive to the corner gas station and fill a few barrels of regular unleaded. The plane crashes shortly after takeoff and kills everyone.

This would probably be simple case of gross negligence. Friends don't kill friends to save a few cent/gallon.

Anyone would would treat their customers in such a crass manner is not a friend, and deserves no protection.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

This would probably be simple case of gross negligence. Friends don't kill friends to save a few cent/gallon.

Anyone would would treat their customers in such a crass manner is not a friend, and deserves no protection.

Not verifying what I purchased prior to jumping it is my responsibility. This is why I prefer to deliver new or used gear to purchasers in pieces - so they can see that they have received exactly what they expected to receive.

And again, making or not making a judgement on aircraft maintainance is my responsibility.

I'm serious. I can not think of a situation in which I would sue after I was injured in a skydiving-related incident. I may not speak to a person again, I may spread my story around the community... but I wouldn't sue. I promised not to.

[billvon 2,400]

>the document does NOT say that you will not sue the DZ under any circumstances.

---------------------------------
3) AGREEMENT NOT TO SUE. I agree never to institute any
lawsuit or cause of action against any of the Releasees, or to
initiate or to assist in the prosecution of any claim for damages
against the Releasees which I may have by reason of injury to my
person or property, or my death, arising from the activities
covered by this agreement, whether caused by the negligence or
fault, active or passive, of any of the Releasees, or from any other
cause.
--------------------------------

That language is in the waiver you signed as well.

[webracer 0]

billvon,
you are right, 100%, technically.
What I am talking about is the real world. I dated a young law student (who became a lawyer while we were dating) for some time (some time ago), and we argued (for fun) on quite few occasions about the law and reality. She knew the law, by the book, better than I could ever hope (or want) to. I knew the world, what really happens, despite what the book (or waiver) says.
Bottom line is that we sign the waivers so we can jump. If you disagree with the waiver, you can't jump.
My family has strict instructions not to sue, I cannot ever forsee suing, but never say never. I don't believe in holding others responsible for my own mistakes (although sometimes I do blame them verbally). If, however, I was lied to or intentionally misled, the case changes.
skybytch states that she feels responsible to know whether the plane is airworthy or not. My problem is expertise in that area. I am pretty much on the ball with lots of things, but turbines and many things to do with aircraft I do not know, nor should I expect to know. The DZs put the language in the waiver because they can, that doesn't mean it will be upheld. It is just slightly a better investment for them than a lottery ticket. Something is better than nothing.
That waiver will be upheld if the DZ did it's part to prevent the incident. Even though they say they don't have to, the courts will likely find differently.
Someone else made the comment that they don't want a jury deciding their case, but the jury is your best bet, they will be quite sympathetic.

Troy

I am now free to exercise my downward mobility.