Strong Lawsuit & 'Defense Fund'

[tkhayes 348]

Because of the 'lady falling out of the harness' in Ohio,
http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/Detailed/185.shtml

Ted Strong is once again having his ass sued off because of someone else's negligence and is going broke trying to defend himself.

Please send some $$$ to Strong Enterprises to help him defend the case and save our sport (and your sport) from similar litigation in the future.

Strong Enterprises, 11236 Satellite Blvd.
Orlando, Florida 32837, USA

I am doing this on my own accord, with no special request from Ted or anyone else. He is completely innocent, his gear is good, if not great, and he will likely spend $600K defending himself against greedy fucking slimey lawyers and people who cannot see justice, but only see money.

Bill Booth also knows exactly what I am talking about.

The TM has no money, so he is not getting sued I bet, and I think the DZ folded to avoid the same and are probably not touchable.

This is an injustice and everyone who ever made a dollar from a tandem skydive owes part of that back to Ted for 50+ years of skydiving innovation and dedication to the sport.

Thanks
TK Hayes
DZO
Skydive City

[stratostar 5]

They already spent 500K.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Skydive2 1]

isn't this the same strong enterprises that just took on a $25 million military contract?

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

isn't this the same strong enterprises that just took on a $25 million military contract?

What has THAT got to do with a lawsuit on the sport side of the shop?


Are you saying, justified or not...that YOU shouldn't be sued because you have a job?


Think B4 U post?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[michalm21 2]

Don't want to derail this thread, but is USPA's defense fund is helping the case at all? Very curious about that.

[tkhayes 348]

I doubt it, Strong enterprises, like most manufacturers, is probably NOT a group member or otherwise a member of USPA.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

isn't this the same strong enterprises that just took on a $25 million military contract?

Makes ya wonder why they bother with the sport side, huh? Hmmm, a lawsuit is a great reason to stop...

Dave

[indyz 1]

Quote

Quote

isn't this the same strong enterprises that just took on a $25 million military contract?

What has THAT got to do with a lawsuit on the sport side of the shop?


Are you saying, justified or not...that YOU shouldn't be sued because you have a job?


Think B4 U post?

I think the lawsuit is bullshit. At the same time, a lawsuit like this is a risk they by selling equipment in the sue-happy US of A (some would say it is inevitable). I feel for them, but it's a cost of doing business and they won't be getting any of my money.

[BMFin 0]

I will send 50 bucks for a fund that will drive towards making the justice system better in the US.

I have said it before and say it again. Its not the lawyers that are crooked, its the system. There will always be someone abusing the system if the system reconizes such abusement.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Nice attitude. I hope you never need help from anyone.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

but it's a cost of doing business and they won't be getting any of my money.

How much 'cost' are you willing to spend to remain in the sport? If you defeat the lawsuit, the next one becomes easier to defeat, since precedent is set. and costs go down (or at least they do not go up)

If you LOSE the lawsuit, then the next idiot has an easier time to pursue their frivolous bullshit and your costs go up and up until there is no more skydiving.

Your attitude says "I can't see the forest for the trees".

Are you willing to skydive when jumps are $100 each? When gear costs $12,000/rig? When everyone is 'expected' to sue - after all - it's just the 'cost of doing business'......

And most importantly, the rig/gear/tandem system was not at fault in this case - the TANDEM INSTRUCTOR was clearly the most culpable in the entire case, but will walk away scot free.

So for that reason, Ted gets my vote. and my support. without Tandem and skydiving, my life would be a completely different experience and certainly not with the benefits, the friends and the culture that I have thrived on for 27+ years now.

THAT is worth a couple hundred dollars of my cash......

But of course, this is a free country and you are entitled to your WRONG opinion.......

[nerd137 0]

So does anyone have any further details about the suit? I mean, isn't there some precedent for a situation like this? What legal protection does Strong have from the waiver signed by the tandem student?

Obviously, even if Strong prevails the legal costs will be considerable. But I'm curious about the likelihood that the lawsuit will be successful.

[FrflyPimpDaddy 0]

T.K., I think it is probably fair to say the Tandem Instructor won't have to pay any money, however, I'm sure he has to pay every night when he closes his eyes. ( I'm not defending him, I'm just sayin) No one will walk away from that deal clean.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

My guess is that it will be successful.
The adoption of the Y-strap afterwards will be presented as a tacid admission of a deficient design.

[feuergnom 28]

moneys on the way - at least some euros from me

The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

[tkhayes 348]

The adoption of the Y-strap afterwards will be presented as a tacid admission of a deficient design an improvement to help prevent NEGLIGENT USE of the product.

As far as being successful, these things work in percentages. He might be found 15% liable or 85% liable, depending on the outcome. Or not at all. The fucking scum-sucking cocksucking lawyers don't care, because 15% of something is worth the fight quite often.

Their case of course is product deficiency. Ted's defense of course (in part) is to demonstrate that short fat women can be and have been safely participating in tandem skydiving using the old style harness since the incention of tandem skydiving and that he cannot be responsible for the mis-use of his product.

The Y-strap improvement to the product is in response to the obvious mis-use of it.

Is GM liable if someone dies in an accident because they fell out of the car while driving with the door open?

If GM put an interlock to prevent the car from being driven with the door open (after the fact), is that a "tacid admission of a deficient design"?

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

But earlier posts are right as well - the system has to change. I have no idea why the TM was not charged with involuntary manslaughter.

[billvon 2,989]

>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.)

[nerd137 0]

So then I wonder how much weight the waiver will have.

My understanding is that waivers are usually upheld.

[billvon 2,989]

>My understanding is that waivers are usually upheld.

Historically they've been pretty strong. Hulsey vs. Elsinore is the case most often cited, but this isn't quite the same (i.e. probably not a student but a passenger, who died as the result of a clear error by the people she paid.)

[kelpdiver 2]

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.)

There is what seems to be a flaw in our legal system that you need to foresee all potential problems in advance. I look at the Vioxx suits as a counterpart in the medical side. Most car improvements seem to come from experimentation in real world results as well. Remember the disaster with the passive seat belts attached to the doors? If the lap belt wasn't used, they could fail quite badly in an accident that opened the door.

How many millions of jumps were made before the need for the change was exposed?

[billvon 2,989]

>How many millions of jumps were made before the need for the change was exposed?

Many! Unfortunately this was not the first fatality of its type, so it was not an unforseen risk.

[tdog 0]

Quote

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.)

I agree with the first half. I disagree with the second half.

A good attorney should be able to argue to the jury that design improvements after an incident show a company that is proactive and cares, and that the case and findings should be based upon knowledge the manufacture had at the time of the incident.

I would hope the lawyers would be able to successfully argue that improvements to designs - because we learn from our shortcomings - is a fundamental part of design.... Not every future configuration or user error can be seen until the product is used and field results come in.

I attended a very interesting seminar at PIA this year, hosted by a well known skydiving lawyer... Between that, knowing a lot of lawyers, and being a business person myself - I understand this is a tough case - but one that must be fought to protect our sport. Precedent matters.

Tandem skydiving = turbine operations.

But - you all know lawyers are reading this. Perhaps even the plaintiff's family. It might cost Ted much more to defend stuff said here than what he will get from TK's advertisement for a defense fund... So, I would suggest people be careful talking about an active lawsuit.

[airtwardo 7]

So, I would suggest people be careful talking about an active lawsuit.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

isn't this the same strong enterprises that just took on a $25 million military contract?

What has THAT got to do with a lawsuit on the sport side of the shop?

I'd be more willing to help a small company with assets to seize and no revenues than one with $25M in revenues that can fend for itself.

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

isn't this the same strong enterprises that just took on a $25 million military contract?

What has THAT got to do with a lawsuit on the sport side of the shop?

I'd be more willing to help a small company with assets to seize and no revenues than one with $25M in revenues that can fend for itself.

You do understand that a contract is awarded to the lowest bidder, nobody is 'giving' 25 million to S.E.

They are making a product at a minimum profit in order to stay in business...you know keep people employed, pay health insurance etc.

Defending frivolous lawsuits is an overhead cost NOT factored into any military contracts.

Fend for themselves? Have you ever BEEN in business??

~ to be clear, 25 million for a military contract is not a huge windfall, an aerospace company I worked for with a similar number of employees as S.E. routinely had quarterly contracts for 10 times that amount from military and the space agency, and there were times we lost money on the bids/contracts...we worked them to keep the doors open so we might make $ later on.


If someone doesn't want to send a jump ticket or two worth of money to a company that has been a mainstay in the sport for 40-50 years then don't.

~Just understand that should a manufacturer just say screw it and fold the tent, the next suit becomes easier and so on...eventually whatever manufacturers can stay in business will only do so by charging 5-6 times the current cost for a rig.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~