Make sure you READ the waiver!

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

So under some cases you wouldn't keep your word?

If you are going to ask the question that way. I would say "yes"

Shit happens and I wouldn't sue anybody for that.

But if I knew there was serious neglect going on then that would be different. Then again if I knew about neglect I wouldn't jump there anymore anyway.

But if something was wrong that they knew about and kept hidden and did nothing about and caused serious injury or death I would sue.

I give my word that I will follow there rules and saftey requirments. I expect them to protect me to the best of their abilities (proper maint, rated pilots and such). If they aren't doing there part then why should they get a free pass?

I know the risks involved in jumping and I except them at their full value. If I hit the plane on exit and become a Quad, if I hook it in, if I get out early or late and land out and break something, if Joe Blow takes me out in free fall or under canopy. These things aren't the DZ's fault. They don't deserve to be sued for things like this.

If they take a student up with an unrated instructor and the student dies... they should get taken to civil and criminal court. Those are the types of things I would sue for.

Dom

[PhreeZone 15]

>If they take a student up with an unrated instructor and the student dies... they should get taken to civil and criminal court.

Whos ratings? USPA ratings don't apply overseas usually and the USPA does'nt recconnize most other ratings. A rating might be perfectly fine in the home country but its not USPA equal here so now they get sued? How about those non-USPA DZ's? What ratings are they required to have?

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[webracer 0]

Sorry to pipe back in, but the bad press actually helped SDC, as the tandems went up. Funny how people flock to danger.
This is the perception, since there was no way to actually guage the damage, and the economy was failing, but the tandem business continued fairly strong.
This comment reflects my opinion.
Sorry also to get off topic, but that's the way the thread is going.

Troy

I am now free to exercise my downward mobility.

[Praetorian 1]

Quote

if Joe Blow takes me out in free fall or under canopy. These things aren't the DZ's fault

Interesting, in skiing in most states a hit and run on the slope is criminal, and your are liable for any harm/damage you cause to another skier on the hill. If I come in outta control and at mach3 because I'm jumping a chute I lack the skill to fly, and I strike you in the landing zone and break your neck.. would you give me a pass? I did something stupid, why shouldn't I get the same free pass a reckless DZO or pilot gets? (waver or not its the concept of "accepting all risks" I'm getting at (like skybytch talks about) ... this is to everyone no just dgskydive.. and its food for though/discussion not my opinion or an attack at anyone

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

If I come in outta control and at mach3 because I'm jumping a chute I lack the skill to fly, and I strike you in the landing zone and break your neck.. would you give me a pass?

Would I give you a "legal" pass? Yeah, I would. Would I expect that you'd at least offer to help pay my medical expenses? Yeah, but I wouldn't sue to force you to do so.

I accept all risks involved in my decision to participate in sport parachuting. No ifs, ands, buts or whatabouts.

[pilotdave 0]

Nightingale: the waivers I've signed do state gross negligence. They basically say i cant sue under ANY circumstances.

Billvon: I'm not a lawyer so maybe I don't have things quite right. But if a DZ commited a crime which hurt me, sure, the DA would be the one taking them to court. But am I not allowed to file a civil suit? If the DZ was found guilty of commiting a crime, do you still think I shouldn't sue?

Skybytch: Are you serious?? You think that when my nice new rig arrives from the drop shop, I should unpack it, inspect the reserve myself, and repack it? Or do you think I should use my x-ray vision to read the label?

How about aircraft maintenance? A clean plane is a safe plane?? If you think you can tell how safe a plane is by looking at it as you get on, you're seriously kidding yourself.

We are NOT the only ones responsible for our own safey. We CANT be.

Dave

[Praetorian 1]

your a better person then I am, I'd kick my ass. and Sue if I didn't offer to help pay medical (sorry the pronouns are confusing me and I'm the one writing this)

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Are you serious?? You think that when my nice new rig arrives from the drop shop, I should unpack it, inspect the reserve myself, and repack it? Or do you think I should use my x-ray vision to read the label?

I'd prefer not to ship it to you packed. That way I know you know you got exactly what you ordered. It is no one other than your responsibility to be sure that what you have on your back is what you expect it to be.

That's not to say that any gear dealer isn't going to be sure that you get exactly what you want/need. But ultimately your use of that parachute/rig is beyond the gear dealers control - and is therefore your responsibility.

Quote

How about aircraft maintenance? A clean plane is a safe plane?? If you think you can tell how safe a plane is by looking at it as you get on, you're seriously kidding yourself.

Kidding myself or not, that's how I handle the issue of aircraft maintainence. Others handle it differently. Regardless, I know and am comfortable with and accept for myself the risks I'm taking, including those (like aircraft maintainence) that I have little or no control over.

[Liemberg 0]

I live in a different legal environment, outside the USA so it may not be a good comparison. We DO have wavers here however and since the DZ's and their legal representatives get to draft the waver (and you don't get into the airplane without signing) it usually is a lot "nicer" for the greedy capitalist DZO as it is for the poor skydiving consumer.
Nothing new there.
What I don't know and am curious about is whether USA wavers also have a standard sentence that says "If this is thrown out in court it must be thrown out paragraph after paragraph" (i.e. this is a legal binding contract, should higher authorities - like the law of the land - decide that you have signed away rights that are 'unwaiverable', the contract stays for the 'waiverable rights' you signed away)

Is this the same in the USA or different?

Other than that, here it is virtually the same: the DZ can get away with negligence but will get into deep trouble with gross negligence; since there is room for debate there it is more prudent to avoid negligence

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but memory." - Leonardo da Vinci
A thousand words...

[newsstand 0]

Quote

See, that's just it. If someone packed socks in my container or lied to me and I died because of it, my ghost would haunt whoever decided to sue. It's my responsibility to know what's in my container, it's my responsibility to get all the information required to make a safe skydive before I do it.

So if tomorrow you had to rent some gear you would open up the reserve to make sure there were no socks packed in there?

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[skybytch 259]

Quote

So if tomorrow you had to rent some gear you would open up the reserve to make sure there were no socks packed in there?

No, I'd look at the packing data card and seal and assume that the rigger who packed it isn't out to get me. I'm comfortable with trusting "a" rigger; I'm comfortable taking on the risk of not physically seeing the reserve.

And if it were packed with socks instead of a canopy and I were injured or died, I or my heirs wouldn't sue.

[pilotdave 0]

Ok, you wouldn't sue. Lets say your rigger, who you trust, packs his dirty socks in your container because you forgot to buy him his favorite drink the last time you had a reserve ride. You checked the data card, checked the seal, etc.

You go jump, have a mal, cut away, and fall into a swamp, breaking a toe. But since you fell out of the sky, they call in a life flight helicopter to take you to the hospital. They run hundreds of tests and determine all you need is a splint on your toe (do they even do anything for a broken toe?).

My question: what do you do?

Dave

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Once you have your own gear or are no longer under the direct supervision of an instructor what you jump is 100% your responsibility... but until then it's still 100% your responsibility because it's on your back. If you don't know enough about the gear you are using to be comfortable with it, find out what you need to know before you jump it.

to throw some gas on the fire....

now apply this logic to canopy choice....

'you pays your money you take your chances" its your life, risk it in any manner you chose, poor planes, bad pilots, unskilled jumpers or tiny canopies, just dont whine if the consequences catch up with you...the key word is you

would i sue? no way, no how, and i've taken the steps i can to ensure no one else will on 'my behalf'

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Praetorian 1]

Quote

'you pays your money you take your chances" its your life, risk it in any manner you chose, poor planes, bad pilots, unskilled jumpers or tiny canopies, just dont whine if the consequences catch up with you...the key word is you

I agree take any risk you like and if the DZO is willing to tell you up front the plane is held together with gum and bailing wire, the pilot is a kid he pulled from a video arcade and the gear he gave you is surplus and hasn't been checked or used in 10 years ... then its your call, but if all of the above is true and he tells you that the plane is up to FAA regs the gear is great, and the pilot is a former topgun/current airline pilot, according to the contract you/we all signed, the DZO is untouchable to you (yea I got confirmation from a friend the waiver for SDC includes Gross neg, and also a paragraph about it having to be thrown out one paragraph at a time)
so while we have signed wavers that have language that includes the above (total BS) situation, we all sign believing that this situation will never come to pass, and were it to occur, we understand that the waiver will never standup (and the DZOs and their legal advisers do too) so when I gave my word it was with the knowledge that as long as what I just described never comes to pass I have swarn not to sue, but should the above occur then damn right my word is not binding .. as when the contract is erased by abuse so is my signature/vow

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[billvon 2,396]

>Agreeing not to sue, never, ever, ever, is not in the waiver.

---------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------

You figure "I agree never to institute any lawsuit" doesn't mean you agree to never sue them?

I give up. I am sure you will have success suing a DZ if you choose to do so; you seem well prepared to do so, and you seem to have no problem with disregarding your previous agreements. I hope you fail in such attempts, but as history has shown, your approach is probably more indicative of the future of skydiving than mine is. Which is sad.

[billvon 2,396]

>They run hundreds of tests and determine all you need is a splint on
>your toe (do they even do anything for a broken toe?).

>My question: what do you do?

You realize that next time you could die doing this, and decide whether or not you want to continue in the sport. (And you realize that the waiver was literally correct - you CAN be injured or killed by other people's negligence or carelessness.)

[Praetorian 1]

Your not getting the point of the other side of the argument, I understand you feel your word is absolute, but I'm pretty sure when you signed the paper that you were also assuming that at no time would your life be intentionally put at risk by anyone but you, that the owner would have the brains to keep his gear up to spec(or damn close) and the only risks you were running were the normal ones associated with the sport, not in a perfect world but in the real world not one where intentionally evil crazy stupid things are perfectly common, I'm sure that you understand the wording is extreme so extreme that it allows for situations where it would be voided. I respect that you feel even in those extremes your word would still hold. But any sense of justice in a complex matter cannot be black and white. In the most extreme violations the waiver is dissolved by the court (judges) so the contract you signed and gave your word to is no longer there. I appreciate that you feel your word is your bond and holds beyond this. Now as for lawsuits that people file without this extreme violation I hate those people and any system that would support a suit for a million bucks for a fractured ankle form a bad landing from a "bad" spot But I also hate any system that would hold a waiver as a perfect shield for a perfect villain

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[billvon 2,396]

>but I'm pretty sure when you signed the paper that you were also
> assuming that at no time would your life be intentionally put at risk
> by anyone but you . . .

I assumed no one would try to intentionally hurt me, but also that they could be completely careless and negligent and thus cause my death. If they try to hurt me and succeed, they go to jail because that's a crime. I have no problem with that. If they are simply incredibly negligent and decide not to maintain their airplane, but aren't actively trying to kill me, well - I agreed I was OK with that.

>Now as for lawsuits that people file without this extreme violation I
> hate those people and any system that would support a suit for a
>million bucks for a fractured ankle form a bad landing from a "bad"
> spot . . .

Me too. But on this thread we've heard one person say they would sue if their (rental) reserve was out of date and it caused an injury! That's their threshold. A reserve out of date and they consider it "gross negligence." That's the problem with agreeing on paper but really not agreeing to the waiver. To most people, a really evil person is a person that causes them grievous harm. If you sprain your ankle, that bad spot is no problem. If you break your back and are paralyzed, suddenly that bad spot is a grossly negligent attempt to save a buck on a jump run, an attempt to personally profit that intentionally put you in a life-threatening situation and that resulted in your permanent disability.

It would be nice if that didn't happen, or if only whuffos did that. That's no longer true. Skydivers sue other skydivers regularly. I suppose it's where the future of skydiving lies - where the DZ with the best laywers wins - but I don't have to like it.

>But I also hate any system that would hold a waiver as a perfect
> shield for a perfect villain

I agree. The best solution for a perfect villain is independent action - take away his experienced jumpers and instructors, and he closes down. Problem solved, and no slimy laywer, no loophole, no shell corporation can let him to continue to put people at risk. Does that take effort? You bet. Is it worth it? If you'd rather have skydiving run by skydivers instead of laywers, I think it is.

[Eiley 0]

Quote

Sorry to pipe back in, but the bad press actually helped SDC, as the tandems went up. Funny how people flock to danger.

I have no idea where you got such fanciful information from, but this statement is just wrong. Not only did SDC lose heaps of business when these reports were being run, so did the other operators in the area. I was working in the office in one of SDC's competitors and we had the tandems cancelling in droves after each newspaper article. Explaining that the articles referred to a different DZ, or that the deceased persons were all highly experienced jumpers who personally screwed up did not help much at all, as to the potential tandems the articles just generally proved that this was an activity that could kill you, as opposed to it being one of those abstract dangers, like when you go on a carnival ride.

nothing to see here

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

>So why would I sign the waiver? Cause if I want to jump I have no
>choice, obviously.

Well, OK. That's a double edged sword though, because you've just stated that you'll sign things you don't intend to honor if there is some advantage to you for doing so. Keep in mind that can be applied to things other people agree to with you, as well.

I don't agree at all. He's asked to sign a legal agreement. The law works in both directions. He can sign with a perfectly clear conscience if he knows he's being asked to relinquish a right that they can't legally ask him to relinquish.

And as soon as any criminal aspect enters into the negligence, no-one can hide behind the law to escape the consequences of breaking the law.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pilotdave 0]

I keep trying to get away but this thread draws me back in! I find it totally unbelievable that anyone is willing to be murdered in this sport and not care.

Skydiving is definitely something special and out of the ordinary. I understand the sacrifices people make to participate in the sport. I understand the desire to protect the sport and the people that participate and allow others to participate.

But to say that after nearly being murdered, you would simply have to decide whether or not you want to continue jumping just sounds borderline insane to me. No offense, but seriously, that's nuts.

Please understand I'm not arguing anything here. You can choose to do what you want. I realize that there are people that are willling to put up with anything.

I don't read waivers before signing them. There's nothing in there that would surprise me. Read one, read em all (I used to read them carefully). The fact is, it doesn't matter what the waiver says. If I want to jump, I have to sign. It's as simple as that. So really, your message is don't sue. And under just about any circumstances, I agree. But I don't agree under all circumstances.

Dave

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

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).

Of course "legally" is the issue. The DZ considers it an enforcible legal document and tells you as much. In which case the law applies - all of it, including the bits that say they can't escape the consequences of criminal negligence, for example. The DZ doesn't get to pick and choose which parts of the law apply.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Praetorian 1]

Quote

I agree. The best solution for a perfect villain is independent action - take away his experienced jumpers and instructors, and he closes down. Problem solved, and no slimy laywer, no loophole, no shell corporation can let him to continue to put people at risk. Does that take effort? You bet. Is it worth it? If you'd rather have skydiving run by skydivers instead of laywers, I think it is.

The problem with risks is they are probabilities, you need one of the risks to actually cause a problem before the "evil" DZO/Pilot gets shut down, the chance of getting called out by a fatality/injury is low enough that some people will intentionally cut corners knowing that if and when one of them cuts a divers life not just some expense the waiver will cover them, so they add risk that you know nothing about so you cannot willingly accept, and while the price (which may be too high) is some lame suits that get through the benefit is that DZO's and their advisers know a waiver will mean nothing if they get caught far enough out of line .. thus the pressure to keep them inline (provided that love of their fellow skydivers isn't enough) as for divers suing each other again its sad when its a stupid mistake, but it the threat keeps someone taking too many risks, risks that include hurting me when I'm doing everything right..... I'd rather live in a world where people keep their risks to themselves but if the threat of loosing everything in your life to the civil legal system is the ONLY reason you don't fly fast and close to my NOVICE approach pattern (again assuming I'm doing it right) then I'll make that threat .. and hope I never have to use it

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[PhreeZone 15]

Spend every weekend night possible for 4 summers at a DZ, travel for 16 hours straight through the night to catch a morning load at a southern DZ in the winter, help your friends after they break a leg, do CPR on a body after a fatility... those all shape someone into realizing that there is a difference between criminal liability and personal responcibility. And while criminal liability is the opinon of the courts... personal responcibility is everything else.

You have the option not to get on any jump that you don't want on. If you don't like how some one flies their canopy then sit out any load they are on. I have my eyes on a few canopies more then others when I'm on a load with them.

>I'd rather live in a world where people keep their risks to themselves

Better stick to doing solos, on an airplane by your self. There are many instances of people getting injuried or worse after a freefall collision. That is a risk you take when you are hurling at a non moving object at 120+ miles an hour with certian death less then a minute away unless you do something to alter the out come. Canopy collisions happen all too frequently. There is more risk on every skydive then most people want to admit. And you can control more of the risk then it seems also. Go last and pull 2000 feet higher then everyone else and you reduce the possibility of a canopy collsion by a lot but no one is doing that.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

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.

bill, the question here is what's covered in the waiver. It's not everything. If a DZO comes after me with a lead pipe and actually catches me, you better believe I'm gonna use his ass if I didn't put him in the hospital, and maybe even if I did.

Anything skydiving related I would not sue for, just like I said in the contract.

But look at your own posts; theoretically, you couldn't sue for an instructor coming after you in freefall and trying to kill you with a knife.

You should know that after most trials involving violent felonies [with a guilty verdict], there is a civil suit that follows. Somebody tries stabbing me in freefall and you can believe I'd have their orange jumpsuited ass back in the courtroom.

[edit] basically, mistakes shouldn't be lawsuit material, but intentional harm should.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*