Strong Lawsuit & 'Defense Fund'

[nerd137 0]

Quote

If I were you, I would go back and delete that comment. The lawyers are reading these threads.

Don't forget Big Brother. He's watching too.

[BMFin 0]

I dont know if anyone here can answer this but I was wondering why doesnt strong have any liability insurance ?

[JerryBaumchen 1,376]

Hi tk,

Quote

THey also have the RESPONSIBILITY to sue the correct parties who caused that negligence.

I agree completely.

However, I would like to offer some thoughts of mine.

Disclaimer: my son is an attorney

When I first heard about this fatality I felt that eventually Strong would get sued. This is life here.

The TM, apparently, does not have any money to get.

The dz is closed. There might be a good case to chase them personally; this might be successful and it might not.

That leaves Strong. Strong will have a good case for their defense if it goes to court. My thinking is that the law firm is hoping that Strong will not want to spend the money defending this suit. They ( IMO ), are hoping to get a settlement out of Strong.

I don't think that any law firm would take this case unless they are quite sure that there is money to be had; these almost always are taken on a contingency basis.

I saw something that Mark Schlatter put out after the '07 PIA Symposium in which the lawsuit against Sunpath was the subject of a seminar put on by Bob Feldman, who is an attorney in Florida who usually defends gear mfrs. Mark said that before this case was adjudged in court, he was of the opinion that one should always defend themselves against a lawsuit that they feel is unjust. He changed his mind. Apparently, at one time this lawsuit could have been settled by Sunpath for $50,000. In the end Sunpath spent over $300,000 and had to pay the plaintiff a little over $100,000.

IMO, if Strong has a competent attorney, they will try to settle this, if this is the way that Strong would want to go. This could keep the terms of the settlement private so that no other lawfirm in the future could use it as a precedent in future lawsuits.

I feel badly for Ted Strong because this is a no-win situation no matter how it ends up.

Just my thoughts on an ugly situation.

JerryBaumchen

[futuredivot 0]

The premiums would be so high that the business couldn't absorb the expense adn people would be more likely to sue if they thought a huge wad of cash was there for the taking.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[BMFin 0]

Quote

The premiums would be so high that the business couldn't absorb the expense adn people would be more likely to sue if they thought a huge wad of cash was there for the taking.

So gear manufacturers choose to be on their own if someone sues ?

[piisfish 140]

Quote

Quote

Most European skydiving gear manufacturers stay out of the US market partly because of this reason. That must be a sign of a not so good system.

Are you also contending that European products are safer and better designed?

How about another view - non US manufacturers stay out of the market because they can get away with making crappier products and they don't have to internalize the harms they cause. Not saying anything about any non-US manufacturerers. To be honest, don't know anything about them, but I think all I see (excluding Cyprus) is US gear at the DZ.

I think he was talking about the legal system, not the aeronautical implications directly.

I only jumped European tandem gear and do not feel they are better/less good ( choice of words, worse meaning that some are bad) than US gear. European gear is also well thought and manufactured (at least the ones I jumped)

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[tdog 0]

Quote

I saw something that Mark Schlatter put out after the '07 PIA Symposium in which the lawsuit against Sunpath was the subject of a seminar put on by Bob Feldman, who is an attorney in Florida who usually defends gear mfrs. Mark said that before this case was adjudged in court, he was of the opinion that one should always defend themselves against a lawsuit that they feel is unjust. He changed his mind. Apparently, at one time this lawsuit could have been settled by Sunpath for $50,000. In the end Sunpath spent over $300,000 and had to pay the plaintiff a little over $100,000.

In 2009 the same attorney held a 2 hour seminar that ended up going for 5 or 6 hours, where 1 hour of video depositions were shown, including Mark Schlatter and Dan Poynter's testimony.

It turns out the judge in that case did not let in expert testimony except for one witness OR video of test jumps with gear "damaged" in the same way (pilotchute cap torn from the fabric on a reserve) - where the gear even torn, worked every time... The plaintiff admitted in the deposition that, I kid you not (I watched the video with my own eyes) that 1) She did not know the size of the reserve. 2) That on a 10 way she did not need to track from the formation, but simply turn 180 degrees and pull in place, 3) that she switched types of gear without training, 4) that an AAD was inappropriate for her skillset, 5) that she pulled her handles in the wrong order (although she did not admit that in those words, her physical demonstration showed she did not know how to pull them).

I think that Bob did NOT suggest that he should have settled - he insisted that the way to win cases was to stay strong... But he did say that he was absolutely shocked that the Judge would not let in the testimony of any of the people who could have shown that the Plaintiff's knowledge of gear, or that the plaintiff's reasoning for the gear failure, was flawed, specifically the manufacture of the reserve parachute or Bill Booth. He basically said they lost not because of the nature of the facts, but because of how the Judge managed the case.

Oh, and Mark Schatter lied in the deposition - and he admitted it when he was handed an email he sent someone else. Specifically he sent an e-mail to Dan Poynter, not knowing Dan was already retained by the Defense, asking how to maximize his revenue as an expert witness. Under oath he said he never asked that question, until he was handed a copy of the email and admitted he sent it.

[piisfish 140]

Quote

[ Not saying anything about any non-US manufacturerers. To be honest, don't know anything about them, but I think all I see (excluding Cyprus) is US gear at the DZ.

just to get things correct... Cyprus is a European country (ask Marios here on the forum).

Cypres (Cybernetic Parachute Release System) is a product from Airtec, a German (European) company
Vigil and Argus, which you migt see in the US are also European AAD's

I know it's just a play on spelling, but I got confused when I first read your post

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[pwln 0]

Not just a reply to you piisfish, A few things from different posters.

I barely have money to jump, let alone send to anyone else.
I have gear from manufacturers outside of the US that is way better than something I could get from a US manufacturer. (Think Cypres and L&B)

The Manufacturer didn't have anything to do with what happened. If I remember correctly (and I'm too lazy to do a search) there was a long hold for that jump and the passenger went to the bathroom or something like that. Anything that happened should be on the instructor (and I'm sure the instructor sees that everyday).

I don't think the DZ has closed. Their web site is still up also.

[billvon 3,008]

>Are you also contending that European products are safer and better
>designed?

Sometimes they are. Traditionally, when there is a new rule, requirement, accident or failure, foreign companies design fixes. US companies hire lawyers. That is more due to the litigious nature of our society than any desire (or lack of desire) to make a better product; US companies just have to deal with the legal system a lot more.

[JerryBaumchen 1,376]

Hi tdog,

Quote

In 2009 the same attorney held a 2 hour seminar that ended up going for 5 or 6 hours, where 1 hour of video depositions were shown, including Mark Schlatter and Dan Poynter's testimony.

Since I attended Bob Feldman's seminar in '07 I thought that his '09 seminar would be just a re-hash. Looks like I should have attended.

Quote

It turns out the judge in that case did not let in expert testimony except for one witness OR video of test jumps with gear "damaged"

Like it or not, that is a perogative of the bench.

Quote

The plaintiff admitted in the deposition that, I kid you not (I watched the video with my own eyes) that 1) She did not know the size of the reserve. 2) That on a 10 way she did not need to track from the formation, but simply turn 180 degrees and pull in place, 3) that she switched types of gear without training, 4) that an AAD was inappropriate for her skillset, 5) that she pulled her handles in the wrong order (although she did not admit that in those words, her physical demonstration showed she did not know how to pull them).

IMO none of this is relative to the gear failure. Whether she turned 180 degrees or 540 degrees is not relative to the issue of the lawsuit; it was based upon the 'failure' of the gear.

Quote

I think that Bob did NOT suggest that he should have settled

I was referring to Mark's saying that Sunpath should have settled. When I listen to Bob Feldman I reach the conclusion that he believes in taking a very firm stand and defend it at all costs.

Sorry to be all nit-picky but I did say that my son was an attorney.

At this point in my life I have reached the conclusion that most skydivers, when discussing these types of things, fail to stay on point - the issue before the court. Just my opinion.

Back when I was still a 'working stiff' I was the primary engineer in a lawsuit. We withheld $80,000 of funds to a contractor & he, in turn, sued us for $250,000. During the 1 1/2 yrs that it took until settlement, I learned just what it means to 'stay on point.'

Just my thoughts . . .

JerryBaumchen

[ozzy13 0]

There is NO waiver for negligence. At least not in the great US of A

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[JustChuteMeNow 0]

Ted has my full support and I would encourage other people to help as they are able.

Think of how stupid the average person is and realize that statistically half of them are stupider than that.

[tdog 0]

Quote

IMO none of this is relative to the gear failure. Whether she turned 180 degrees or 540 degrees is not relative to the issue of the lawsuit; it was based upon the 'failure' of the gear.

Unless, of course, user error is or could be the cause of the incident. Everything the skydiver says in error indicates their knowledge of the sport and procedures.

[tkhayes 348]

***

The 'failed gear' is/was approved by the FAA on more than one occasion, as a TSO'd system and as an experimental system for 20 years.++

Maybe they should be suing the FAA.....

[councilman24 37]

Quote

Quote

In this case the DZ closed up shop if Im correct. Not sure what the instructor is doing but thats who this case should involve.

DZ is still open this year, not sure what is going on with behind the scenes stuff but the DZ has been flying loads this spring already.

I think you'll find it's a different corporation.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[councilman24 37]

Most of the manufacturers have stratagies in place to limit damage. I'm not a business man so I can't describe them very well. But for instance, some own no raw material stock. A separate corporation owns it and sells it to the manuf. as needed. Some rent all of their equipment from another corporation. etc, etc. Precision Aerodynamics liquidated and Precision.aero was formed. (I may have the specific names wrong.) Some of the stuff is off shore. My impression is that Ted doesn't do as much of this as others.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[MakeItHappen 15]

Here is how you can help Ted out.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[nigel99 507]

Quote

I dont know if anyone here can answer this but I was wondering why doesnt strong have any liability insurance ?

It is interesting that in the UK it is illegal to operate a company without public liability insurance - I am surprised the US doesn't require the same.

That said Strong has my sympathies, I don't see anything to be gained by suing people (including the TI). If it is a criminal offence then let the courts impose fines/jailterms etc. I find it sick that relatives and the lawyers who chase these cases are willing to sell a loved ones mortality for a quick buck.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

When a person dies due to negligence, a simple “sorry dude” doesn’t cut it in my book.

They have the right to sue.

Even when they signed a document stating exactly the opposite?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

There is NO waiver for negligence. At least not in the great US of A

Folks, there is a great deal of speculation as to the law by non-lawyers on this Forum, and in particular, in this thread. Most of it, including the above blanket statement, is flat-out wrong. Take any legal advice or information on this Forum with a HUGE grain of salt.

As to the OP's proposal to send money to Strong, any competent businessperson in a high-risk industry like skydiving has got to know that lawsuits, even frivolous ones, are eventually going to happen. I'm sorry Strong got sued, and I hope they prevail in the suit, or at least are able to negotiate a reasonable settlement. But the people who run Strong knew, or should have known, this could and would happen at some point, and if they didn't plan for this eventuality, it's their own fault. I'm not in the mood right now to bail out any more businesspeople who made bad decisions.

[JerryBaumchen 1,376]

Hi tk,

My comments on the gear 'failure' were in regards to the lawsuit against Sunpath. It is my understanding that was the basis of the lawsuit.

IMO, there was no gear failure in the incident with the Strong tandem gear.

Just to clear things up.

As I said, I feel sorry for Ted as he is in a no-win situation,

JerryBaumchen

[tetra316 0]

Quote

I'm not in the mood right now to bail out any more businesspeople who made bad decisions.

This incident was not due to any fault with Strong but rather a fault with the Intstructor.

[377 22]

Quote

>Or is GM just reacting to the fact that some people are so fucking stupid
>that they do not deserve to live?

If that's true they would not have made the change, eh?

Unfortunately, making such a change _is_ an admission that there was a design change that could have saved her life had it been implemented. It doesn't mean he was negligent, but it does mean that there were steps he did not take to ensure tandem passenger's safety. (I would argue that he shouldn't be required to take such steps but the jury may see it differently.)

Bill has a valid logical point about design changes, but there is a good public policy reason for the following state evidence rule which is also found in the federal evidence code. You don't want to discourage mfrs from making design changes that remedy prior deficiencies.

Calif Evidence Code section 1151:

When, after the occurrence of an event, remedial or
precautionary measures are taken, which, if taken previously, would
have tended to make the event less likely to occur, evidence of such
subsequent measures is inadmissible to prove negligence or culpable
conduct in connection with the event.

377

2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

I'm not in the mood right now to bail out any more businesspeople who made bad decisions.

This incident was not due to any fault with Strong but rather a fault with the Intstructor.

That will be decided by a jury based on the evidence (including competing expert opinions) at trial, with the jury being guided by very highly-detailed pre-deliberation legal instructions given to them by the trial judge - not by people who have nothing to do with the case based on their gut-check.

What you've said is basically what's known as the "misuse of product" defense. Sometimes this defense prevails at trial in product liability cases, and sometimes it doesn't.

The typical counter-valing argument made by the plaintiff in a product liability case is summed up in AndyBoyd's post:

Quote

But the people who run Strong knew, or should have known, this could and would happen at some point, and if they didn't plan for this eventuality, it's their own fault.

To put it simply, in many products cases, and certainly in this one, the case does not - necessarily - just end simply because the product was not used properly. If the particular type of mis-use was reasonably anticipatable by the manufacturer at the time of the design and/or assembly and/or placing into the stream of commerce (or even afterwards; that's why there are product recalls), and that anticipatable mis-use could have been reasonably guarded against in advance by the manufacturer - and this is for the jury to decide - the jury can find the manufacturer liable. Not necessarily will, but can.

Should Strong have reasonably anticipated this type of screw-up by a TI? If so, could Strong have guarded against this type of TI mistake in the design of its product in a manner that was practical, feasible and reasonable given the state of the art at the time? These questions will be answered by the jury at the end of the trial (provided the judge does not dismiss the case on a defense "motion for summary judgment" based on the waiver, or other reasons).

P.S - I hope Strong wins.
P.P.S. - I'm just the messenger.