Riggers liability

[lilchief 1]

You're a rigger and you packed the reserve to a skydiver who gets a reserve malfunction and dies. Are you legally responsible for the skydivers death and then could be jailed for murder?

I got the question from a non rigger, and it got me thinking. I'm just a trainee and couldn't give him a reasonable answer. I'd like to hear opinions from riggers and DZO's mainly. I'd like to ask those who are not riggers, DZO or have first hand info to not post your opinions to shorten the thread and make it more solid.

If there's been some real cases where riggers have been investigated, I'd be happy to hear what happened in that case.

Thanks.

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[hackish 8]

Depending on your local laws I would say quite possibly yes. Even reserves are not perfect but if it fails to open and they find a temp pin still inside the rig then that would probably fall into criminal negligence causing death or whatever that idea is called in your country.

I'm building temp pins now and was thinking what happened if the pin broke or the ribbon came off. It's possible that you could close the pack and have a correct tool count when finished - not realising part of the pin was still in the pack. Things like that could create a grey area of liability.

-Michael

[kenneth21441 0]

It depends on several factors. I know back at Bragg on person whom had cut static lines: he was placed where he could not do this now or again in KS.

If it was a honest to God mistake then they may let it slide but know that the family will sue you the Rigger and would most likey win the case. So with that if you do rigging it might be necessary to get personal blanket protection (insurance). I am not sure if this works but also having the customer sign a wavier like we do for sport skydiving might help... But then Again I am not a Lawer, maybe someone on her can answer this part better.


Do your best and be sure Always. Means do the right thing and it should all work out.

Kenneth Potter
FAA Senior Parachute Rigger
Tactical Delivery Instructor (Jeddah, KSA)
FFL Gunsmith

[Andy9o8 2]

Lilchief, your question is quite reasonable, but there are 2 fairly big errors in this thread: (a) yours, for asking that a legal question be answered by a DZO or rigger, when it should be answered by a lawyer, and (b) Hackish's for giving legal advice that he's not qualified to give.

(Disclaimer: Hackish has a bright, inquisitive, ANALytical mind, and while some people give him shit for his posts, I hope he keeps posting, and asking good questions. But in this case, he doesn't have the answer.)

The answer (from a lawyer), as it is applied to the US, is this: generally, you can civilly sue anyone for anything; it's more a matter of who will win. If Rigger's error amounts to "ordinary negligence" (i.e., Rigger just plain makes a mistake), AND if Jumper is legally an adult and has signed a waiver that is well-drafted, and Jumper (or Jumper's survivors) files a civil lawsuit against Rigger, then Rigger will probably win in court, based on the waiver - after spending a shitload on legal fees that Rigger probably pays out of his own pocket (as he won't have insurance that covers the claim) and will not be recoverable from Jumper.

If Rigger's error is so egregious and callous (but still not deliberate) that it amounts to "recklessness" or "gross negligence", and Jumper civilly sues Rigger, the waiver might not protect Rigger, and Rigger might be on the hook for civil damages.

Riggers are very, very rarely charged with crimes over rigging mistakes that result in injury or death. It's probably unlikely that Rigger will be charged with a crime if the prosecutor thinks it's ordinary negligence. Yes, there is such a thing as "criminal negligence", but that really requires more than ordinary negligence - it requires "gross negligence", which means conduct so reckless, even though it's not a deliberate attempt to harm someone, that it demonstrates callous disregard of an obvious likelihood that the conduct will result in someone's harm. Rather than giving hypothetical examples that someone here is certain to nitpick with, l'll just say again - it's very rare that this is used as the basis of criminal charges against a rigger after an incident.

Of course, if a rigger deliberately sabotages someone's equipment, specifically intending that they be harmed as a result - which I don't think is the example you're thinking of - then that would be a crime, no more or less as any other deliberate physical attack on someone.

[lilchief 1]

Quote

Lilchief, your question is quite reasonable, but there are 2 fairly big errors in this thread: (a) yours, for asking that a legal question be answered by a DZO or rigger, when it should be answered by a lawyer, .

OK
If there's any lawyers out there, could you enlight us on the subject?

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Lilchief, your question is quite reasonable, but there are 2 fairly big errors in this thread: (a) yours, for asking that a legal question be answered by a DZO or rigger, when it should be answered by a lawyer, .

OK
If there's any lawyers out there, could you enlight us on the subject?

I guess you missed this bit:

"The answer (from a lawyer), as it is applied to the US, is this..."

...

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

[lilchief 1]

Quote

[
I guess you missed this bit:

"The answer (from a lawyer), as it is applied to the US, is this..."

DOH!

Sorry andy...

"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you long to return." - Da Vinci
www.lilchief.no

[TonyJ 0]

"Jumper is legally an adult and has signed a waiver that is well-drafted, and Jumper (or Jumper's survivors) files a civil lawsuit against Rigger, then Rigger will probably win in court, based on the waiver - after spending a shitload on legal fees that Rigger probably pays out of his own pocket (as he won't have insurance that covers the claim) and will not be recoverable from Jumper."

What wavier, from the dropzone? I have never signed a waiver from a rigger...I have not read the dropzones wavier lately but when i did it didnt mention anything about other jumpers of riggers...I dont use a "staff rigger"..

tony

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

"Jumper is legally an adult and has signed a waiver that is well-drafted, and Jumper (or Jumper's survivors) files a civil lawsuit against Rigger, then Rigger will probably win in court, based on the waiver - after spending a shitload on legal fees that Rigger probably pays out of his own pocket (as he won't have insurance that covers the claim) and will not be recoverable from Jumper."

What wavier, from the dropzone? I have never signed a waiver from a rigger...I have not read the dropzones wavier lately but when i did it didnt mention anything about other jumpers of riggers...I dont use a "staff rigger"..

tony

Yes, the DZ's standard waiver. As I said: "if the waiver is well-drafted...". If it is, the intended net effect of it is to protect any and all potential defendants: DZO, instructor, staff, equipment manufacturers, pilot, rigger, etc. Bill Booth recently posted something about how he's been sued several times (as an equipment mfgr., I presume), and each time it was the waiver that successfully defended him (well, that, and presumably a good lawyer...).

[JerryBaumchen 1,363]

Hi Andy,

Quote

it's very rare that this is used as the basis of criminal charges against a rigger after an incident.

I agree that it is very rare; and quite often the gear is not in a condition to determine (i.e., goes in with nothing out).

However, this is how they got Ted Mayfield (sorry but I do not remember the actual charge that he plead Guilty to; it was reduced from something like Negligent Manslaughter).

I know this because I had built the rig (for an experienced jumper and it was being used in a SL-configuration for a 1st-time jumper) and I testified before the Grand Jury.

The rig was built as a PullOut and Mayfield merely hooked a static line up to the bridle between the pull-out handle and the closing pin(s).

JerryBaumchen

[tdog 0]

Quote

(well, that, and presumably a good lawyer...).

I never have met one, have you? They must be rare, I can't find them at the zoo either.

But, with that said, you wanna put together a good waiver (a few lines perhaps at the bottom of a workorder to be signed) that basically says,

"Parachutes fail even with the best rigging. I will do my best, but I make no promises, I may even screw up, accidents happen, I am human, so don't even think of suing me! If you don't like these terms, you may get a full refund for services rendered, your parachute will be unpacked, and you may use another rigger."

Perhaps if enough people accept it and adopt it in the public domain of skydiving - it will protect riggers without each one of us having to find a lawyer to take our money. (Sorry, but my HOA just gave $100,000 in money to a lawyer for basically a month's worth of part time work, so I have fed the animals in the zoo this month.)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

However, this is how they got Ted Mayfield (sorry but I do not remember the actual charge that he plead Guilty to; it was reduced from something like Negligent Manslaughter).

I know this because I had built the rig (for an experienced jumper and it was being used in a SL-configuration for a 1st-time jumper) and I testified before the Grand Jury.

I've no doubt there are individual examples like this, but I want talented rigger wannabes to realize just how rare this is, so they're not scared off away from being part of the next generation of great riggers.

PS - Re: Ted's case, about which I know nothing, I'll say this: I've practiced a lot of criminal defense law, and it's always agonizing to discuss plea bargain with a client who's been over-charged by the DA and is certain he's done nothing wrong. (Over-charging is done all the time, to give the DA leverage in plea-bargain negotiations.) Trial verdicts, even if they can be predicted generally, are impossible to guarantee in advance with certainty, no matter what the evidence may be. So, defendants who feel they're completely innocent are left with a very tough choice: (a) go to trial, and maybe be acquitted, and maybe be convicted - and if they're acquitted, wonderful! - but if they're convicted of the most serious offense charged, the sentence coould be very severe, or (b) go with the only thing that can truly be guaranteed: take the plea bargain to the lesser offense, receive the bargained-for light sentence, and get on with their life. I've seen many very tough, probably innocent people choose Option (b), and there's no dishonor in it.

Finally, I'll repeat, for the riggers out there: criminal charges against a rigger from an incident are very rare.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

you wanna put together a good waiver (a few lines perhaps at the bottom of a workorder to be signed) that basically says,

"Parachutes fail even with the best rigging. I will do my best, but I make no promises, I may even screw up, accidents happen, I am human, so don't even think of suing me! If you don't like these terms, you may get a full refund for services rendered, your parachute will be unpacked, and you may use another rigger."

Perhaps if enough people accept it and adopt it in the public domain of skydiving - it will protect riggers without each one of us having to find a lawyer to take our money

Most very comprehensive waivers already have that effect, although I've seen many waivers that I've felt should be strengthened just to close as many loopholes as posible.

That being said, while better waivers may reduce the number of lawsuits, simply because plaintiffs' attorneys carefully screen their potential cases and usually reject those they feel are un-winnable, no waiver in the world can prevent a rigger from being sued. All it can do is help the rigger's lawyer successfully defend the case. And yes, he'll still have to pay legal fees; and no, he won't be able to recover them from the plaintiff.

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

The answer (from a lawyer), as it is applied to the US, is this: generally, you can civilly sue anyone for anything; it's more a matter of who will win. If Rigger's error amounts to "ordinary negligence" (i.e., Rigger just plain makes a mistake), AND if Jumper is legally an adult and has signed a waiver that is well-drafted, and Jumper (or Jumper's survivors) files a civil lawsuit against Rigger, then Rigger will probably win in court, based on the waiver

One situation hasn't been brought up... what if there is no rigger error at all? Since even perfect rigging can fail... say they get a spinner, chop, get massive line-twists and go in trying to kick out of them. Then there isn't even ordinary negligence. It seems to me that to sucessfully sue a rigger you (should) have to prove there was a mistake made, otherwise the combination of the DZ waiver and the disclaimer that comes with the reserve should protect the rigger (not saying they couldn't be sued, just that they couldn't be convicted).

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[itllclear 1]

Quote

no, he won't be able to recover them from the plaintiff.

That's what the indemnification clause in the "Assumtion of Risk, Waiver of Responsibility, and Indemnification" document is for. "Jumper agrees to indemnify rigger in the amount of $25,000 as liquidated damages in the event any demand or lawsuit is initiated against rigger on a cause of action based on the rigger's work on this parachute assembly."

It might stand up; it might not. It will discourage some lawsuits.

"Harry, why did you land all the way out there? Nobody else landed out there."

"Your statement answered your question."

[NickDG 23]

Yes, except for the military cases mentioned and Ted Mayfield's shenanigans I've never heard of a civilian rigger being jailed. There have been, however, some that have been sued and had their careers and reputations ruined.

For new riggers there is a big lesson in what happened to Mike B.

Mike was a Southern California rigger who inspected and packed the Reflex that James Martin was wearing when he was killed at Perris. I knew Mike pretty well as he also worked for the same BASE equipment company I did when this incident happened. He was a fairly new rigger, but he was conscientious and bright.

James Martin, like a lot of Perris/Elsinore locals including me, purchased the Reflex system when it first came out. It was an innovative rig and we all knew and respected the manufacturer who was also a local jumper.

Right around this same time canopy manufactures also started to make available some of the strongest yet smallest diameter suspension line the sport had ever seen. And James, like a lot of jumpers, liked to have the latest and greatest stuff. I'm not entirely sure, but I doubt Mike the rigger ever saw the main canopy, which was equipped with these newer lines, when he inspected and packed the reserve into James' new Reflex.

So James was putting his sixth jump on his new gear when a main suspension line snagged a grommet on the Reflex's main container. He cutaway but the snag held and when he fired the reserve it fouled in the trailing main. Everybody who owned a Reflex quickly took a closer look at their grommets. The ones on my rig looked fine, but the manufacturer came out with a SB saying the grommets should now be "countersunk."

The ensuing lawsuit stated the grommets weren't set correctly but failed to mention the partnering cause which was the new smaller suspension lines. Now suspension lines have "caught" in grommets prior to this, but the older Dacron lines were too fat to get totally under a grommet unless it was so badly set a rigger would have to be blind to miss it. And if a few fibers of that Dacron were snagged they would be too weak to hold. But this new type line was a whole different ball game and I'm sure if I would have inspected James' rig I would have passed it too. Shortly after this incident it came to light this new line was snagging on other types of rigs too. But none of those ended in fatalities so that info didn't hit the rigger grapevine quickly enough.

And that's the lesson here. Mike was caught in a gear vacuum. That period of time after something new comes out but before all the ramifications are fully known. This was a sad affair for everyone involved, it was sad for James, sad for the Reflex manufacturer, and sad for Mike the rigger . . .

NickD BASE 194

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

One situation hasn't been brought up... what if there is no rigger error at all?

The best answer I can give you is that, generally speaking, neither the presence nor the absence of a human error can ever be either proven or disproven to a 100% certainty. Yes, there must be some proof that a mistake was made in order for a finding of negligence to be sustained. But - there will either be conflicting evidence, or conflicting expert opinions as to what conclusions should be drawn from the evidence, or both. It will then be up to the judge, or the jury (depending on what phase the case is in) to evaluate all the evidence and resolve the conflicts as best as they can.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

no, he won't be able to recover them from the plaintiff.

That's what the indemnification clause in the "Assumtion of Risk, Waiver of Responsibility, and Indemnification" document is for. "Jumper agrees to indemnify rigger in the amount of $25,000 as liquidated damages in the event any demand or lawsuit is initiated against rigger on a cause of action based on the rigger's work on this parachute assembly."

It might stand up; it might not. It will discourage some lawsuits.

The majority of courts that have ruled on such indemnification/fee-shifting clauses in skydiving (or other risky sport's similar waivers), have ruled that they are not enforceable, even if the rest of the waiver itself is enforceable.

That being said, it does no harm to put it in - the worst that can happen is that that particular clause won't be enforced - and if it discourages any lawsuits from being filed, so much the better.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Shortly after this incident it came to light this new line was snagging on other types of rigs too. But none of those ended in fatalities so that info didn't hit the rigger grapevine quickly enough.

FMI see Line Snags on Grommets

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[riggerrob 643]

Yes,

James Martin's accident was the first step in the whole "Grommet Mania 2000" frenzy. A month - or so - later a German skydiver suffered the same problem on a Javelin in Eloy.
The German ignored a service bulletin published in Australia a few years earlier.
Then a bunch of container manufacturers issued a flurry of service bulletins.

The sadest part of the whole thing was watching lawyers destroy Mike. Mike was a conscientious Senior Rigger and a far better packer than I will ever be. After wasting $10,000 of his money, Mike was let off the case when lawyers realized that he had to no money.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Lilchief, your question is quite reasonable, but there are 2 fairly big errors in this thread: (a) yours, for asking that a legal question be answered by a DZO or rigger, when it should be answered by a lawyer, and (b) Hackish's for giving legal advice that he's not qualified to give.

(Disclaimer: Hackish has a bright, inquisitive, ANALytical mind, and while some people give him shit for his posts, I hope he keeps posting, and asking good questions. But in this case, he doesn't have the answer.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tee!
Hee!
An hour into last week's CSPA Rigger A Course, I had to say: "Hackish, we know that you know the answers, now please let some of the other students answer a few questions."

In conclusion, hackish is curious and has a solid grasp of the basics of parachute rigging. I expect that he will master parachute rigging in another decade or so.

• Quote

[novacaine 0]

Quote

Quote

An hour into last week's CSPA Rigger A Course, I had to say: "Hackish, we know that you know the answers, now please let some of the other students answer a few questions."

Please tell us CSPA members, Rob that your joking? As Hackish clearly doesn't have the recommended CoP that one needs to to take the Rigger "A" course.

• Quote

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

Quote

An hour into last week's CSPA Rigger A Course, I had to say: "Hackish, we know that you know the answers, now please let some of the other students answer a few questions."

Please tell us CSPA members, Rob that your joking? As Hackish clearly doesn't have the recommended CoP that one needs to to take the Rigger "A" course.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am serious.

Yes, CSPA sets "B" Certificate as a pre-level for Rigger A candidates. This is just to establish baseline knowledge at the start of the course.

However the same CSPA Rigger instructor handbook also allows RIs some latitude - for candidates short of "B" COP level - if they demonstrate adequate understanding of back ground knowledge.

An hour into the course, I concluded that hackish was the only candidate who had read the textbook cover-to-cover. Even more impressive is that significant blocks of rigging knowledge actually adhered to his brain!

In conclusion, hackish displayed a greater breadth and depth of knowledge than your average "B" COP holder, so I let him complete the course.

• Quote

[livendive 8]

Quote

"Jumper is legally an adult and has signed a waiver that is well-drafted, and Jumper (or Jumper's survivors) files a civil lawsuit against Rigger, then Rigger will probably win in court, based on the waiver - after spending a shitload on legal fees that Rigger probably pays out of his own pocket (as he won't have insurance that covers the claim) and will not be recoverable from Jumper."

What wavier, from the dropzone? I have never signed a waiver from a rigger...I have not read the dropzones wavier lately but when i did it didnt mention anything about other jumpers of riggers...I dont use a "staff rigger"..

tony

What he said. I feel comfortable that my rigger's ass is covered on my rigs by virtue of our waiver, but if an up-jumper gets his reserve packed by a rigger who is not affiliated with the dropzone where said up-jumper bounces, whose waiver is the rigger going to wave around to ward off the ambulance chasers?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[hackish 8]

Be very careful about waivers. I've had the discussion many times with lawyers. In many areas you cannot waive the rights of your successors to sue. Another point my lawyer explained to me is that in many jurisdictions you cannot waive the right to sue for negligence.

As others have said, ask your lawyer for advice - that's what I did.

-Michael