Twin Otter Lawsuit - (Was: Twin Otter production restarted!)

[tdog 0]

You are right. And you modified my examples to a DZO who made a reasonable effort once confronted with the issue.

The waiver can't stop a lawsuit, anyone can sue for any reason.

The waiver can't (from what a lawyer told me) protect anyone from "gross" acts.

It will take a jury and judge to decide.

Good news, the DZs I have been to have fixed issues and have no gross acts that I have seen.

[Scrumpot 1]

Quote

DZs I have been to have fixed issues and have no gross acts that I have seen.

Apparently then, you just aint been around!

(partially a play-on words JOKE here people, before anyone gets too all up-in-arms or anything)

Blues,
-Grant

coitus non circum - Moab Stone

[squirrel 0]

Quote

> Peoples need for lawyers is a direct ratio to their inability to
>take responsibility for their actions, and their lack of ability to work
>through problems.

Not only are skydivers suing skydivers nowadays, some people are _encouraging_ other jumpers to sue skydivers to deal with things like pattern accidents. So we are gradually becoming those people.

I will never become a part of "we."

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I will never become a part of "we."

Agreed. But can you, with full confidence, say the same about your next of kin?

On a slight tangent, a conversation I had a few months back was a real eye opener for me about the way a lot of people think these days in the 'blame' culture.

Someone from my DZ was killed in a deployment collision with a ff coach, he was seriously injured. At a uni skydiving club social a couple of our SL students asked about it and I explained the rough circumstances of the accident. The response? They thought the coach should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

That put a fair bit of cold water on my enthusiasm for introducing new people to the sport

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[grue 1]

He might be good, btu it doesn't change the fact he's a slimy leech. He's on the list of people I wouldn't mind seeing die as soon as possible under non-suspicious circumstances. Tripping and falling down a flight of stairs at a courthouse and breaking his neck with video rolling would be perfect.

I HATE lawyers like him.

cavete terrae.

[grue 1]

Quote

Quote

The tail on the King Air is pretty low.

as is the tail on the PAC750XL

I still smirk a little bit every time I board

cavete terrae.

[grue 1]

Quote

Agreed. But can you, with full confidence, say the same about your next of kin?

If they want to get anything from me, they will. My legal will specifically states anyone filing a lawsuit involving my death if I'm killed skydiving or on BASE will not receive any of my potential life insurance payout, or any assets that would otherwise be left to them.

If it gets to that point, I'm fucking dead, and suing the people that made me happy is just going to be cause for me to haunt your greedy ass.

cavete terrae.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

The only time I could see a lawsuit I would support - is if there is clear gross negligence

There is no such thing as 'clear gross negligence'. Everything is subjective when it comes to negligence. It uses terms such as 'reasonable' and ordinary' even in its definitions.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n010.htm

Just because the DZO/aircraft owner/operator disagree on maintenance does not mean that ANYONE is or was negligent. i.e. Can you fly with a crack in the windshield? Yes, but only to a degree. That degree is not clearly defined. If the mechanic wants to replace it and the owner does not, AND even if the windshield fails, that does not mean necessarily that ANY negligence was involved.

Now if someone DIES because of the failed windshield - that actually changes things, especially in the eye of a jury. But did the actual level of negligence change? No it did not. Just because someone got hurt or killed, the assumption becomes someone did something wrong and lawyers start corraling.

If the windshield fails and NO ONE gets hurt - there are no lawyers involved at all. The actual act of NOT replacing the windshield did not change.

So back to 'clear gross negligence'.... no matter what - it is seldom 'clear'.

TK

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Seems reasonable for divrdave to have posted his OP, but what's the point of this discussion at this point?

Most of us do not have a law degree and the moderators are editing this thread heavily.

[PhreeZone 20]

The only editing that has occured once this was split was the deletion of your post that was just a smiley.

Lawsuits happen, if anyone thinks they will not then they are in for a shock at some point. It could come after a plane crash or even after a student breaks a leg on a tandem. People need to be aware of this so that they can talk to local lawyers to see if there is anything they can do to protect themselves if a lawsuit happens one day.

I've heard of DZ's placing every asset in a different companies name. IE. one owns the runway, one owns the buildings, one owns the planes, one owns the skydiving gear. This way if they are sued and lose they still have some assets that can be excluded.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Quote

The only editing that has occurred once this was split was the deletion of your post that was just a smiley.

... and that was to let you know I noticed the deletion of at least one of DPs posts bashing lawyers and the deletion of my reply to him cautioning him to not necessarily lump the families these lawyers are representing in with them.

Quote

Lawsuits happen, if anyone thinks they will not then they are in for a shock at some point. It could come after a plane crash or even after a student breaks a leg on a tandem. People need to be aware of this so that they can talk to local lawyers to see if there is anything they can do to protect themselves if a lawsuit happens one day.

I've heard of DZ's placing every asset in a different companies name. IE. one owns the runway, one owns the buildings, one owns the planes, one owns the skydiving gear. This way if they are sued and lose they still have some assets that can be excluded.

Good point, but I still pose the question to all why they think there's a point in whipping this dead horse-thread?

[kallend 2,027]

Hi TK:

Just because there's a grey area between black and white doesn't mean that black doesn't exist.

...

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

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Hi TK:

Just because there's a grey area between black and white doesn't mean that black doesn't exist.

That is an example of a good analogy!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

“Somewhere along the way, this design was hijacked by the skydiving industry and used in a way the engine was not designed for – it can’t handle the excessive takeoffs of skydiving trips.”

I guess DZs aren't the only people using twin otters that way: "Typically, we fly around 75-100 hours per month and can do up to 20 cycles per day. If you stay here long enough you may even have a day where you do 23-24 take offs and landings." And that's on floats, in salt water, in the middle of nowhere.

http://www.pilotcareercentre.com/APilotsLifeDetail.asp?APLID=174

Dave

[Zing 2]

Guess that there lawyer type must think of that as water-cooled ...

Zing Lurks

[JohanW 0]

Quote

So, how many Turbo-Fan or Turbo-Jet powered aircraft out there are being used for jump ops? Perris' DC-9. Anyone, please point out others, but that's all that comes to my mind.

AN-72. Espace boogie / AN-72 boogie (Europe).

Johan.
I am. I think.

[leewilcox 0]

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Family-skydive-crash-victim-awarded-163-2-4m-trial/article-3532532-detail/article.html


Family of skydive crash victim awarded £2.4m after US trial
< Previous 1 2 Next >

Former Derby student Victoria Delacroix
By Paul Whyatt Pwhyatt@Derbytelegraph.Co.Uk

A US jury has awarded £12 million to the families of five people, including a former University of Derby student, who died in a skydiving plane crash that was blamed on defective engine parts.

The wrongful death lawsuit was filed by families of five of the six people who died when an engine of the DeHavilland Twin Otter plane exploded near Sullivan Regional Airport, Missouri.

The skydiving plane hit a utility pole and a tree as it came down, killing all but two of the people on board.

Former Derby student Victoria Delacroix had set out to conquer her fear of heights by doing a tandem skydive.

Just before take-off on July 29, 2006, the 22-year-old sent a text message to her family to say she was about to jump.

Miss Delacroix, who had just finished a geography course at the University of Derby, had been volunteering in the US at a summer camp for disabled people.

She suffered serious internal injuries.

Her mother, Susan Delacroix, of Beckenham, Kent, said at the time of the crash: "Victoria was a sweet, caring girl who was adored by everyone."

Miss Delacroix had lived with five friends in Duffield Road while at the university.

Also killed in the crash were Melissa Berridge, 38, Robert Cook, 22, Scott Cowan, 42, Rob Walsh, 44, and David Pasternorster, 34. Mr Pasternorster's family was not a party to the lawsuit.

Mr Cook sacrificed himself to cushion the impact for another passenger, a first-time skydiver, who survived.

The jury in Franklin County, Missouri, awarded the families $4 million (£2.4 million) each before ordering engineering company Doncasters to pay $28 million (£17 million) in punitive damages.

Doncasters manufactured the compressor turbine blade that failed.

The lawsuit alleged that the company used a different alloy in the blade than the original component.

According to an expert witness, Doncasters allegedly hid documents showing that the turbine blade failed tests.

After the ruling, Doncasters chief executive Bill Ellis said: "We are surprised by and extremely disappointed with the outcome of the case.

"The safety of air passengers is of the utmost importance to Doncasters, and our thoughts remain with the family and friends of those individuals affected.

"However, we stand behind the airworthiness of our products. We believe we have strong grounds to overturn the judgement and will be filing post-trial motions in due course."

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion" - Democritus