Skydive Chicago -- Man sues over propeller injuries -- Press Clips

[quade 3]

http://www.ottawadailytimes.com/news/story.php?storyid=9001354

Quote

Man sues over propeller injuries
By DAN CHURNEY — Staff Writer

An Aurora man, who walked into a spinning airplane propeller at Skydive Chicago two years ago, recently filed a lawsuit against the facility in La Salle County Circuit Court.

Robert Dieterle lodged the suit May 23; Skydive Chicago responded to his complaint on Monday.

Dieterlie asserted that he visited the facility on May 28, 2001, with a group who were going to parachute. He was invited to ride along with the skydivers on their aircraft, which he did.

After the plane landed, he exited the craft and was struck repeatedly by a propeller and injured, according to court papers.

Dieterle claimed that Skydive Chicago failed to warn him of the danger and failed to provide a safe means of exit from the plane.

However, the facility’s attorney, Fred Morelli, a former judge from Aurora, contended that Dieterle signed a release of liability and assumption of risk before the incident, in which he agreed to not sue Skydive Chicago.

Part of the agreement stated that if Dieterle did sue, he would reimburse Skydive Chicago’s legal costs that arose from such a suit. Morelli wrote that the cost of Dieterle’s suit will exceed $25,000.

Morelli also argued that before the mishap occurred, Dieterle failed to heed warnings, deliberately walked into the propeller and tried to duck the turning blades.

Dieterle is represented by Zellner & Associates of Naperville.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Don't you just love our modern society. Did it ever occur to this guy that walking near the rotating propellars was hazardous to his health? Instead, he's trying to sue the DZ for his own stupidity. A small child may not understand the dangers, but an adult? Jeez ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[SkydiveMonkey 0]

A turbine engine and a spinning prop are almost inaudible though and very hard to see. yeah right.

____________________
Say no to subliminal messages

[CloudOnMyTongue 0]

Only in America....

[billvon 2,396]

>Don't you just love our modern society.

Hey, we have skydivers suing skydivers nowadays. Doesn't suprise me at all.

[Zenister 0]

i'm getting alot of use out of this [callous] tag lately..

[callous]sad to say but sometime you just have to wish the idiot would have died instead. hopefully the failed lawsuit bankrupts him. [/callous]

i have seen people climb out of the otter and take a right turn toward the prop..luckily there was some one there to grab them...

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

we have skydivers suing skydivers nowadays. Doesn't suprise me at all.

That's it. I'm going to sue BillVon, Ron, Skybytch and all of the other canopy nazis out there because they've been saying things on these forums which make me think about NOT running out and flying a cross-braced pocket rocket canopy. You canopy nazis are holding me back and because of that I'm going to take you for all you've got (LOL ... which probably isn't all that much).

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[andy2 0]

they'll countersue for the emotional despair you'll put them in by flying your pocket rocket. Everytime a newbie flies a WL too high for them a canopy nazi dies somewhere

---------------------------------------------
let my inspiration flow,
in token rhyme suggesting rhythm...

[freakydiver 0]

I'm going to sue all of you just because I'm jealous of the total number of jumps dz dto com'ers have accumulated. WATCH OUT HERE I COME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[AndyMan 7]

It's a mistake anybody could've made, and infact a skydiver made a very similar mistake just a few weeks later that nearly killed her.

What the newspaper doesn't mention is that the guy was sitting right-seat, and exited through the right cockpit door after the pilot had shut down the engines.

The passenger exited the side door and stepped straight into the silently still spinning prop. The pilot attempted to stop him, but it was too late.

The guy clearly did himself in... but making fun of him tells me that you do not take aircraft safety very seriously. It shows complacency on your part.

Aircraft safety is not obvious. This guy was hit by a SILENT prop, it can happen to any one of us, even skydivers, even pilots - in fact it does happen to skydivers, way too frequently. It happens to people who know a lot more about planes then you or I do.

I won't be surprised if this guy does make some progress in the lawsuit because there is some fault in any DZ that lets somebody ride in the cockpit of an commercial airplane. Yes, all DZ's do it, but that doesn't change the fact that the cockpit of commercial airplanes are not places to put paying passengers. They are not safe places.

Does American Airlines let passengers fly right-seat? Why should DZ's? It's a hell of a lot safer on a 747 then it is on an Otter....

Ever fly commercially on a Dash-8? Do they ever let passengers off the plane while the props are still spinning? Ever wonder why?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[freakydiver 0]

Well shoot - if those are indeed the facts, then this guy does have a legitimate case on his hands...

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[Zenister 0]

not really, he still signed a waiver, and if its legally sound....the dz could grease the walk ways and its your fault if you slip..

dont want to get hurt? stay on the couch, otherwise its up to you to pay attention to your surroundings.

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

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

What the newspaper doesn't mention is that the guy was sitting right-seat, and exited through the right cockpit door after the pilot had shut down the engines.

The passenger exited the side door and stepped straight into the silently still spinning prop. The pilot attempted to stop him, but it was too late.

The guy clearly did himself in... but making fun of him tells me that you do not take aircraft safety very seriously. It shows complacency on your part.

Well those are details that weren't made available to us. I of course was assuming he exited from the rear side door and walked around to the front of an airplane (doing this how could you not know that the engines were running what with the prop blast and all). But exiting from the front passenger door adds a spin on his case. Still though, anytime you're around an airplane you need to watch out for this sort of stuff.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Jib 0]

Quote

Yes, all DZ's do it, but that doesn't change the fact that the cockpit of commercial airplanes are not places to put paying passengers. They are not safe places.

Why? Airlines don't let people fly right seat for added safety in case on pilot becomes incompacitated and to reduce cockpit management. Commercial charters and scenic flights regularly allow passengers in the right seat.

As for letting someone off the plane while the props are spinning, you may be right. I'm not sure that they would be silient. But, I'm not sure any of that gets past the release.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

not really, he still signed a waiver, and if its legally sound....t

I doubt very much that any standard US DZ waiver will ever be found legally sound, in its entirety.

For example, clauses like "anyone who sues has to pay us $25,000" will be tossed right off the bat. You can't sign away the right to sue. You can sign away some the damages you'd receive in a jugement, but not the right to sue in the first place.

Likewise, in an example of gross negligence (say, an full otter goes in with a pilot that has a blood-alcohol reading of 4 times the legal limit), clauses about jumpers assumining all risks will be dumped - having a wasted pilot is not a risk we willingly assume when we jump from airplanes.

Waiver have sucessfully gotten DZ's off of many skydiving related claims, but they are not bullet-proof.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[turtlespeed 212]

What the newspaper doesn't mention is that the guy was sitting right-seat, and exited through the right cockpit door after the pilot had shut down the engines.
***

The article never mentioned the type of aircraft it was. I mean to say, it would be pretty stupid if it was a 182, and he still was prop struck.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Zenister 0]

you may want to check Perris's then..

as I was told (and i assume the lawyer you watch has checked it out..now court challenge is something else, particularly in Cali but)

"if you slip on a banana peel in the parking lot we are not liable"

we call it a waiver, but its more an assumption of risk. you understand that you might get hurt here for any number of reasons, that may not be directly your fault.

it does seem strange that they let him exit thru the front, i've seen LOTS of observer riders in the front seats and they always climb out the back just like all the jumpers...

Q: do you know if they told him to get out the side door? or did he just think it was like his honda?? open door exit vehicle?

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

[Jib 0]

Quote

You can't sign away the right to sue. You can sign away some the damages you'd receive in a jugement, but not the right to sue in the first place.

You'd be surprised at what you are able to sign away lose via a contract/release. Among other things, you can agree not to sue people for negligence and acts of third parties and you can agree pay their attorney's fees and costs; you can also agree to arbitration in lieu of the right to sue.
When you talk about gross or intentional conduct, you're really saying that as a matter of public policy, the courts have refused to allow certain provisions to be enforced. That's something separate from not being able to sign away your right to sue; it's that the courts won't enforce the agreement.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

you may want to check Perris's then..

as I was told (and i assume the lawyer you watch has checked it out..now court challenge is something else, particularly in Cali but)

"if you slip on a banana peel in the parking lot we are not liable"

A lawyer for a dropzone will tell you whatever in the best interest of that dropzone. That's his job.

They can claim they're not liable all they want, but until a judge agrees with them that simply isn't the case. In an extreme case, like the completely sloshed pilot, it is unlikely the judge would agree with them.

That said, I have no idea what he was told or not. I was not there, and the only word against whataever the guy says is what the pilot says.

There was a bit of talk about it on wreck dot, a bit here, I think too. Most of the info I found out at the dz after the fact. This one did not make the NTSB reports, although the one 3 weeks later did.

The guy should be thankfull he got off with only 60 stiches. Many aren't so lucky....

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

When you talk about gross or intentional conduct, you're really saying that as a matter of public policy, the courts have refused to allow certain provisions to be enforced. That's something separate from not being able to sign away your right to sue; it's that the courts won't enforce the agreement.

I stand corrected. I am not a lawyer. That said, this doesn't change the fact that its very unlikely that a complete waiver will ever be enforcable. Parts of it will, but not all....

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[FallingILweenie 0]

From what i have seen from working in court, even though i haven't seen anyhting contractual, its not so much whether or not parts of a waiver are enforceable. I think that the real point of contention is that both lawyers will try to put different limits on what each of the points of the waiver say, and then it will just come down to what the judge interprets the waiver as saying, and what the facts disputed are, and then whether or not the judge determines that whatever happened according to what he heard falls under what the waiver intends to cover.

[lawrocket 3]

Here's a very good case that explains a lot of this waiver business called Hulsey v. Elsinore

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/callawft.pl?CiRestriction=Hulsey+v.+Elsinore

Basically, many of these waivers are airtight regarding skydiving. In California, the right to recover for negligence can be waived, except for in certain cases, like where a doctor won't treat you emergently without a waiver.

In this case, if it were California, the DZ stands a good shot of winning. There was no necessity for him to be in that plane. He chose to do it, and was warned, via waiver (I am guessing this, since I haven't seen this actual waiver) about risks like death and stuff.

Nevertheless, an argument could be made that the waiver didn't warn of prop strike. I reckon that's where plaintiff's attorneys would go. Sinc eI don't know the law of Illinois re: contributory negligence as a defense, I cannot comment on that. In that case, a good defense might be that any person of ordinary prudence would suspect that a propeller that was there for a whole ride to altitude and back will still be there on landing.

But I recommend that all of you California jumpers read up on the Hulsey v. Elsinore case.

I can tell you that, as an attorney, I had a great deal of professional respect for that attorney who drafted the waiver 'Snore uses. I was like a carpenter viewing the Taj Majal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Q: do you know if they told him to get out the side door? or did he just think it was like his honda?? open door exit vehicle?

My recollection is that he was not told to exit at all, but just did it on his own before the pilot could stop him.

...

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

[Deleted 0]

Observers on skydiving aircraft should be escorted from the plane. Lets not forget that, if they are an observer, they usually are unfamiliar with skydiving and aircrafts. They did not go through the first jump course. Again...observers should be escorted from the plane. This does NOT mean I think he should sue. He signed a waiver...he walked into the prop. S___ happens.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

What the newspaper doesn't mention is that the guy was sitting right-seat, and exited through the right cockpit door after the pilot had shut down the engines.

The passenger exited the side door and stepped straight into the silently still spinning prop. The pilot attempted to stop him, but it was too late.

The guy clearly did himself in... but making fun of him tells me that you do not take aircraft safety very seriously. It shows complacency on your part.


_Am

Andyman, you are completely wrong about the events in this incident. He did not exit through the right door. You said yourself you were not there so how is it that you think he exited the right door? The fact is he went to the back of the plane and got out the main door while the aircraft was being fueled. That's all I have to say about that but there's a big difference between your story (I don't know where you got that from) and the real facts of the incident.

Silently still spinning? Give me a break. Those PT-6s are damn loud. And even if you are deaf you can feel the vibration of their operation. Oh, and that little blast of moving air might give you a clue that it exists.

The rest of the story will have to be played out in court. I'm sure the Ottawa Times will have continued indepth coverage.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125