Recommended Posts
But what if (devils advocate) the parents of the deceased TM decided to sue the parents of the deceased daughter and the DZO because there was a chance he would never have been on the load if their daughter had not signed up to do a tandem skydive?
lawsuits like this are ridiculous, and they can go either way in terms of potential responsibility. bottom line is she signed the waiver, she knew (as much as any non-skydiver can) the risks involved, and she elected to get on the airplane.
Its the same exact risk that I and every other skydiver takes each time we board an aircraft to jump (or to fly for that matter).
Again, condolances to the family. It sucks, but life is hard sometimes.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7596/c7596f05d838d9adf0c7be1c923ca774e52ad600" alt=":( :("
As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...
bob.dino 1
QuoteShe said, and I'm quoting here exactly, "this was so unnecessary." And I'm thinking NECESSARY??!!!? What does necessary have to do with it?? It was an accident. Accidents are never necessary. Her choice of words made it sound like she thought it was almost intentional. It just struck me weird.
It's just an English manner of speaking.
jtval 0
QuoteI am what you Yanks would call an Attorney.
For what it's worth, in my opinion this whole situation screams that the lawyer contacted the client rather than the other way round.
I freely accept however that it could easily have been the other way round... but in my experience the situation described in the article would be extremely unusual if it had been.
I'm afraid however, that you will all have to console yourselves with the fact that we'll probably never know and that we are all left to simply guess.
...not that it actually really matters in the grand scale of things.
Thanks for your input.
My Videos
Quote
But what if (devils advocate) the parents of the deceased TM decided to sue the parents of the deceased daughter and the DZO because there was a chance he would never have been on the load if their daughter had not signed up to do a tandem skydive?
the judge would laugh and sanction the lawyer for wasting time.
Even without knowing anything about what happened to the Otter, there is no comparison.
I do hope the manufacturers think twice about settling this time. It's no longer cost of trial versus settlement, but rather summation of settlements to come.
kallend 2,032
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
dmitch31 0
I'm willing to admit that I don't know, but you think you know this guy's motives, method of operation, what communication has transpired, etc., when you really don't.
You can fan the flames of a thread where everybody is being led to think/say "he's an ambulance chaser", "the body wasn't even cold", "this guy deserves to be hurt really really bad", etc. And what it all boils down to is just a bunch of bullshit and a bunch of skydivers demonstrating that they jump to conclusions and pass judgment when they clearly couldn't possibly be aware of the facts of what actually transpired. It makes us all start looking like a bunch of morons. That's my beef with it.
It's best to refrain from commenting when you don't know the facts, ESPECIALLY when it comes to judging other people and their motives. I wouldn't appreciate it if you did it to me, and you wouldn't appreciate it if I did it to you. I can't tell you not to do it, but I am trying to tell you I think it's not a good idea and generally not helpful for anyone.
jtval 0
QuoteMy point regarding how the attorney and his client came together is: "We don't know." "I don't know." Whether you like it or not, YOU don't know either. There's no point expressing "opinions" (as you call them) about something which you have no way of knowing any of the facts. Call Mrs. Delacroix and ask her if the attorney instigated it or not and then you "might" have grounds to express an opinion about what you actually know to be true. Otherwise it's just all worthless conjecture that gets people all worked up for no good reason.
I'm willing to admit that I don't know, but you think you know this guy's motives, method of operation, what communication has transpired, etc., when you really don't.
You can fan the flames of a thread where everybody is being led to think/say "he's an ambulance chaser", "the body wasn't even cold", "this guy deserves to be hurt really really bad", etc. And what it all boils down to is just a bunch of bullshit and a bunch of skydivers demonstrating that they jump to conclusions and pass judgment when they clearly couldn't possibly be aware of the facts of what actually transpired. It makes us all start looking like a bunch of morons. That's my beef with it.
It's best to refrain from commenting when you don't know the facts, ESPECIALLY when it comes to judging other people and their motives. I wouldn't appreciate it if you did it to me, and you wouldn't appreciate it if I did it to you. I can't tell you not to do it, but I am trying to tell you I think it's not a good idea and generally not helpful for anyone.
Ok now read this back as if I posted it to you. Do you have a crystal ball?
I never said "the body wasn't even cold", "this guy deserves to be hurt really really bad", " and I refered to him being an ambulance chaser in response to another post.
Quote
I wouldn't appreciate it if you did it to me, and you wouldn't appreciate it if I did it to you.
but you are doing it to me. why would you feel the need to single me out? there are many people here who feel that way.
I guess you can post your opinion about me all day but I can't post my opinion. Is that it?
read the restof the thread. this lawyer has a history of sueing aviation and skydiving. I told you my opinion and you told me yours. unless you have somekind of proof to either truthI see no reason to discuss this with you.
Ease up. I feel bad for all involved. anything other than that will not be discussed with you
My Videos
Quote
It's best to refrain from commenting when you don't know the facts, ESPECIALLY when it comes to judging other people and their motives. I wouldn't appreciate it if you did it to me, and you wouldn't appreciate it if I did it to you. I can't tell you not to do it, but I am trying to tell you I think it's not a good idea and generally not helpful for anyone.
the lawyer in question knows no more facts than anyone else at this time.
DBCOOPER 5
If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.
For what it's worth, in my opinion this whole situation screams that the lawyer contacted the client rather than the other way round.
I freely accept however that it could easily have been the other way round... but in my experience the situation described in the article would be extremely unusual if it had been.
I'm afraid however, that you will all have to console yourselves with the fact that we'll probably never know and that we are all left to simply guess.
...not that it actually really matters in the grand scale of things.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites