jlmiracle 7 #201 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteOkay, if they are negligent, meaning they put out a product they knew could kill or seriously hurt someone, IMO is criminal. They should be thrown in jail. This perhaps is the only reason that stands out as a reason to no-show at the trial... They knew about the defect, and did nothing... no criminal charges have been filed... go to court to defend yourself, and facts come out during testimony, and are now public record, that you did know... The DA now files charges, and you end up in jail... Not saying that happened here... but it is only scenario that I have sceen here that would justify a no-show. J So you believe, because this rubio guys says so, that Precision purposely put out a defective product? That's bizarre. Especially since their own staff jumps their products. WOW. And the reason no criminal charges were filed is because all people want is money. Judy JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #202 January 7, 2004 MAN! Okay so there are other options but I still think all you are doing is making my point. That defending yourself would have been a wiser course of action even without hindsight. Wheterh you do it with or with out a lawyer. Of course a man who defedns HIMSELF in court has a fool for a client. Okay I'm done stick a fork in me. HEy not there! Ouch! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #203 January 7, 2004 Quote(you came to this irrational conclusion that nothing could go wrong unless the manufacturer was negligent.) Yep I have the irrational concept that if is NEGLIGENCE is WRONG. These 2 statements have nothing to do with each other. Yes, negligence is wrong. But if something goes wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean someone is negligent. It could be that shit happens. QuoteYes for the 4th time sorry if I expect my reserved canopy to save my life in the event, I'm sorry if I expect my car breaks to work everytime. But I will prepare myself for the worse I expect not to fall in the shower, but it could happen. If I do, I won't be suing the tub manufactuer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #204 January 7, 2004 what it seems like this is coming down to is: as skydivers, we don't WANT to believe that someone could knowingly allow a faulty product on the market. We want to be able to trust our gear manufacturers, so we can have confidence in our equipment. We automatically want to assume that the lawsuit was frivolous without knowing all the facts. Also, is there any way this was a default judgement stemming from the defendant's failure to appear? A default judgment is a judgment rendered as a result of the non-appearance of one of the parties or for failure to answer a complaint. If default judgment is entered against a defendant for failure to answer a summons or failure to appear at trial, the defendant may be assessed damages, interest, costs and other items allowed by law, such as attorney fees... Interest and costs for any default judgment are determined as for a regular judgment. http://jec.unm.edu/resources/benchbooks/magistrate/1-3-2.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 4 #205 January 7, 2004 If not on appeal, it will be set aside by the Judge. It has happened before when the judgment is so far out of line. SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #206 January 7, 2004 QuoteSo you believe, because this rubio guys says so, that Precision purposely put out a defective product? No, I do not believe the PA knowingly put out a defective product, but I don't know that they didn't either... I do know that were found to have done so by a court of law. If you were being sued, even if you thought there were no merit to it, would you not mount a defense, even a self-represented one? As to criminal charges, do you know, for sure, why no charges were filed? Usually, a DA makes that call, not a complainant. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #207 January 7, 2004 Quotewhat it seems like this is coming down to is: as skydivers, we don't WANT to believe that someone could knowingly allow a faulty product on the market. We want to be able to trust our gear manufacturers, so we can have confidence in our equipment. We automatically want to assume that the lawsuit was frivolous without knowing all the facts. Also, is there any way this was a default judgement stemming from the defendant's failure to appear? A default judgment is a judgment rendered as a result of the non-appearance of one of the parties or for failure to answer a complaint. If default judgment is entered against a defendant for failure to answer a summons or failure to appear at trial, the defendant may be assessed damages, interest, costs and other items allowed by law, such as attorney fees... Interest and costs for any default judgment are determined as for a regular judgment. http://jec.unm.edu/resources/benchbooks/magistrate/1-3-2.htm Okay, What are the facts? A skydiving manufacturer has NOTHING to gain by knowingly putting out a defective product. I don't understand how people can skydive and think that their gear is perfect and will never malfunction. Skydiving is not a "safe" sport. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #208 January 7, 2004 Quote No, I do not believe the PA knowingly put out a defective product, but I don't know that they didn't either... J Why would they purposely do that? It makes no sense whatsoever. What is their motive because they would never get away with it because something would go wrong, guaranteed. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #209 January 7, 2004 I got a PM and, with permission, I'm posting it: "He was jumping within the placarded weight for this reserve, he was doing a RW jump (I think a 4 way) he had a P/C in tow, he cutaway 1st then deployed his reserve, the reserve did have some burn damage from his main which did deploy as the reserve was coming out. The P/C in tow was a worn out p/c that he knew he needed to replace, he commented that it had been giving him some trouble. His medical Ins did have something to do with the lawsuit. As far as his injuries well he was f-uped for a long time, has had a ton of surgeries and did about die a few times in the begining. As far a long term I am sure there will be lasting affects but he is lucky cause he is walking and talking and for the most part you can not tell he was ever injured. " This PM changes everything for me. The main deployed as the reserve deployed, and the reserve was damaged. At that point all bets are off. I can't expect a reserve to hold together if it is damaged by the main. The other big point, for me anyway, was; "His medical Ins did have something to do with the lawsuit.". Derek Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #210 January 7, 2004 QuoteWhy would they purposely do that? Don't know, but companies do dumb stuff all the time... My question remains... why not defend yourself against the accusations? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #211 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuote My question remains... why not defend yourself against the accusations? J NO MONEY - you can't squeeze blood out of turnip. Court cost money. Lawyers cost too much money. Time off work costs money. Paying frivolous lawsuits, we all lose. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #212 January 7, 2004 QuoteThis PM changes everything for me. The main deployed as the reserve deployed, and the reserve was damaged. At that point all bets are off. I can't expect a reserve to hold together if it is damaged by the main. The only thing it might change for me is my opinion of the merits of his case... info like that may have changed the mind of a few jurors too... but if noone was there to ask the question... It does not change my opinion of PA's handling of the matter... get sued, defend yourself... if you can't afford, or don't want to pay for a lawyer, do it yourself. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #213 January 7, 2004 QuoteTime off work costs money Not defending themselves will cost them money, or more likely the entire business... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dbattman 0 #214 January 7, 2004 Judy: Four people are dead because of the -Ms construction issue covered under the service bulletin. Not just one isolated incident, not just one malfunction under a radical situation going headdown loaded at 2.0. Rubio was failure four, with a fifth failure that same weekend. He was within design specs, belly to earth during a controlled reserve deployment. 12 bartack attachements were pulled out of the reserve. An additional two lines were broken leaving only 4 of the 20 attachment points on the right side of the reserve. It took five failures for PA to issue a service bulletin admitting that the attachment method needs to be reinforced. Let's check out another one- the Crossfire. Someone had to die before Icarus said 'Ya know, perhaps that canopy collapse issue that's being talked about is real after all. We'd better fix that nose problem.' Rubio is not out for money. He knows damn well that there is no money to get in this sport. So why the lawsuit? Perhaps to pull this issue out into the open and convince manufacturers to be a little more dilligent? Read the SB- estimates one hour of work by a master rigger to reinforce the attachments. Could this issue not have been talked about in the rigging world under the radar after the first or even second failure? Canopies could have been fixed as they were brough in for repack, preventing this in the first place. Agree with the lawsuit or not, there is more here than just some clown screwing up and sticking his hand out. Bring it on- I'm getting a bonus for every nasty PM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mr2mk1g 10 #215 January 7, 2004 Quote the reserve did have some burn damage from his main which did deploy as the reserve was coming out All bets off like you say. Even if there was a defect there would be no way that the claimant could prove that the malfunction on the reserve was due to it as opposed to the damage caused by the main. Such a lawsuit should not happen and I would hope a properly informed jury would not find in favour of the claimant... but as we have all kept saying throughout this - shit happens. Maybe a lawsuit is warrented on the issue of M- reserves, I don't know. But if what hook posted is correct, this was not the case to take to court. This is a sad story for all involved. I'm sad that my vocation and my sport clash like this hurting everyone in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #216 January 7, 2004 QuoteNot defending themselves will cost them money, or more likely the entire business... I suspect that was going on was that george decided fighting simply wasn't worth it. Looking at Precisions products, they really don't make many these days, do they? People have largely abandoned the Raven after the issues surrounding the servie bulletin, and most of their other canopies are made by other companies and they only act as an import agent. I saw in the same copy of skydiving that Beezy Shaw was taking over the reselling of some of the european canopies, and that his leaving Precision was amicable. I didn't understand the separation until I read about Precisions legal problems. Once you take out the European canopies, and presume that the Raven isn't selling very well anyways, well - I guess there isn't much of a business left to defend. _Am (edited to correct Beezy's name)__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 20 #217 January 7, 2004 >Four people are dead because of the -Ms construction issue covered under the service bulletin. Point out the 4 incidents on the Skydiving fatilities database if you could. I'm not finding any that directly say it was a reserve failure.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jessica 0 #218 January 7, 2004 QuotePeople have largely abandoned the Raven after the issues surrounding the servie bulletin Really? Got any stats? Lisa? Do you have any input as a gear dealer? Have people "largely abandoned" the Raven?Skydiving is for cool people only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jlmiracle 7 #219 January 7, 2004 dbattman - the reserve had damage to it. His PC was worn out and this guy isn't dead. Who are the 4 people that died because of this? If one person died and was jumping a reserve it the specs of what it was intended, I'm sure a service bulletin would have gone out immediately. I have the -M and have had no problems. Judy Shit happensBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #220 January 7, 2004 QuoteReally? Got any stats? Nope, pure AndyMan Speculation(tm). Just my feeling based on what I hear from the locals. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydivegirl 0 #221 January 7, 2004 QuoteI saw in the same copy of skydiving that Ground Zero - Chris Martin was taking over the reselling of some of the european canopies, and that his leaving Precision was amicable. I believe you are talking about Beezy Shaw, not Chris Martin.Pink Mafia Sis #26 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #222 January 7, 2004 Oh right. My bad. Edited to fix. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GroundZero 0 #223 January 7, 2004 Thanks for correcting that... I will be at Precision for many years to come thank you.. (Hi Sam, get out to jump) Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydivegirl 0 #224 January 7, 2004 Pink Mafia Sis #26 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites arlo 0 #225 January 7, 2004 Quote Alot of juries will look at Precision as the large evil corporation (which I don't believe be true) and only in it for the money. I fly their canopies have 2 of their reserves with no problems... are you sponsored in full or in part by precision? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 9 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jdhill 0 #212 January 7, 2004 QuoteThis PM changes everything for me. The main deployed as the reserve deployed, and the reserve was damaged. At that point all bets are off. I can't expect a reserve to hold together if it is damaged by the main. The only thing it might change for me is my opinion of the merits of his case... info like that may have changed the mind of a few jurors too... but if noone was there to ask the question... It does not change my opinion of PA's handling of the matter... get sued, defend yourself... if you can't afford, or don't want to pay for a lawyer, do it yourself. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #213 January 7, 2004 QuoteTime off work costs money Not defending themselves will cost them money, or more likely the entire business... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dbattman 0 #214 January 7, 2004 Judy: Four people are dead because of the -Ms construction issue covered under the service bulletin. Not just one isolated incident, not just one malfunction under a radical situation going headdown loaded at 2.0. Rubio was failure four, with a fifth failure that same weekend. He was within design specs, belly to earth during a controlled reserve deployment. 12 bartack attachements were pulled out of the reserve. An additional two lines were broken leaving only 4 of the 20 attachment points on the right side of the reserve. It took five failures for PA to issue a service bulletin admitting that the attachment method needs to be reinforced. Let's check out another one- the Crossfire. Someone had to die before Icarus said 'Ya know, perhaps that canopy collapse issue that's being talked about is real after all. We'd better fix that nose problem.' Rubio is not out for money. He knows damn well that there is no money to get in this sport. So why the lawsuit? Perhaps to pull this issue out into the open and convince manufacturers to be a little more dilligent? Read the SB- estimates one hour of work by a master rigger to reinforce the attachments. Could this issue not have been talked about in the rigging world under the radar after the first or even second failure? Canopies could have been fixed as they were brough in for repack, preventing this in the first place. Agree with the lawsuit or not, there is more here than just some clown screwing up and sticking his hand out. Bring it on- I'm getting a bonus for every nasty PM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #215 January 7, 2004 Quote the reserve did have some burn damage from his main which did deploy as the reserve was coming out All bets off like you say. Even if there was a defect there would be no way that the claimant could prove that the malfunction on the reserve was due to it as opposed to the damage caused by the main. Such a lawsuit should not happen and I would hope a properly informed jury would not find in favour of the claimant... but as we have all kept saying throughout this - shit happens. Maybe a lawsuit is warrented on the issue of M- reserves, I don't know. But if what hook posted is correct, this was not the case to take to court. This is a sad story for all involved. I'm sad that my vocation and my sport clash like this hurting everyone in the process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #216 January 7, 2004 QuoteNot defending themselves will cost them money, or more likely the entire business... I suspect that was going on was that george decided fighting simply wasn't worth it. Looking at Precisions products, they really don't make many these days, do they? People have largely abandoned the Raven after the issues surrounding the servie bulletin, and most of their other canopies are made by other companies and they only act as an import agent. I saw in the same copy of skydiving that Beezy Shaw was taking over the reselling of some of the european canopies, and that his leaving Precision was amicable. I didn't understand the separation until I read about Precisions legal problems. Once you take out the European canopies, and presume that the Raven isn't selling very well anyways, well - I guess there isn't much of a business left to defend. _Am (edited to correct Beezy's name)__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #217 January 7, 2004 >Four people are dead because of the -Ms construction issue covered under the service bulletin. Point out the 4 incidents on the Skydiving fatilities database if you could. I'm not finding any that directly say it was a reserve failure.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jessica 0 #218 January 7, 2004 QuotePeople have largely abandoned the Raven after the issues surrounding the servie bulletin Really? Got any stats? Lisa? Do you have any input as a gear dealer? Have people "largely abandoned" the Raven?Skydiving is for cool people only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #219 January 7, 2004 dbattman - the reserve had damage to it. His PC was worn out and this guy isn't dead. Who are the 4 people that died because of this? If one person died and was jumping a reserve it the specs of what it was intended, I'm sure a service bulletin would have gone out immediately. I have the -M and have had no problems. Judy Shit happensBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #220 January 7, 2004 QuoteReally? Got any stats? Nope, pure AndyMan Speculation(tm). Just my feeling based on what I hear from the locals. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivegirl 0 #221 January 7, 2004 QuoteI saw in the same copy of skydiving that Ground Zero - Chris Martin was taking over the reselling of some of the european canopies, and that his leaving Precision was amicable. I believe you are talking about Beezy Shaw, not Chris Martin.Pink Mafia Sis #26 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #222 January 7, 2004 Oh right. My bad. Edited to fix. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GroundZero 0 #223 January 7, 2004 Thanks for correcting that... I will be at Precision for many years to come thank you.. (Hi Sam, get out to jump) Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivegirl 0 #224 January 7, 2004 Pink Mafia Sis #26 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
arlo 0 #225 January 7, 2004 Quote Alot of juries will look at Precision as the large evil corporation (which I don't believe be true) and only in it for the money. I fly their canopies have 2 of their reserves with no problems... are you sponsored in full or in part by precision? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
