A Jumper suing a DZ. Should other DZ's ban this jumper?

[ypelchat 0]

Suppose a jumper screws up a jump, because of his own negligence, and injured himself quite seroiusly. This jumper later sued the DZ to try to get money. The DZ being sued will ban this jumper from jumping there, but do you think the other DZ should ban this jumper too?

Tell us what you think.

EDIT: Reworded to add the fact that this jumper got seriously injured.



Yves.

[2fat2fly 0]

You may want to reword. I can't say what my DZO would do, I can only say what I wouldn't jump with anyone not willing to take full accountability for their own safety.

I am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried

[darkwing 5]

I don't know if my DZ would ban him or not, but I hope they would. I would be very upset to have a jumper put my DZ out of business. The only case I have first hand knowledge of I was very disappointed in the jumper that sued. He was banned by many DZs also. I though the banning was justified, and certainly a prudent business move given the lawsuit.

-- Jeff
My Skydiving History

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Suppose a jumper screws up a jump, because of his own negligence, and then later sues the DZ to try to get money.

DZ's are generally businesses (although there are a few club DZs out there still) and I would see letting someone like this jump at your DZ to be a really bad business decision.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[JohnMitchell 16]

Reading the waivers, they almost always say you agree not to sue. So here's a guy who goes back on what he promises, legally and in writing. I want no dealings with this person.

[DJL 235]

Are you talking about a specific case? What are the specifics?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[riggerrob 643]

... don't know my boss' exact attitude, but if I heard of a jumper suing a DZ, I would refuse to repack his reserve, refuse to do any instructional dives with him, refuse to do any coach dives with him, tell the full story to manifest and "suggest" that they not sell him any jump tickets, etc.

Life is too short to waste on people are too immature to follow contracts (i.e. waiver).

[billvon 2,991]

> Reading the waivers, they almost always say you agree not to sue. So
>here's a guy who goes back on what he promises, legally and in writing.

That's modern skydiving. During a recent thread, several people said they would sue anyway if the DZO did something like allow them to rent a rig that was out of date, or allow a pilot to fly a plane that was past a required inspection date - even if they had signed the waiver.

[diablopilot 2]

YEp.



"REAL Skydivers don't sue"


"Don't be a tourist"

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

[tombuch 0]

Quote

That's modern skydiving. During a recent thread, several people said they would sue anyway if the DZO did something like allow them to rent a rig that was out of date, or allow a pilot to fly a plane that was past a required inspection date - even if they had signed the waiver.

Interesting issues. I'd understand a case where the drop zone had a specific legal duty, a breech of duty, the breech caused a harm, and the injured jumper had no reasonable means of knowing about the breech. For example, the out of date rental rig should be identified by the jumper and shouldn't be attributed to the DZ, even if the rig being out of date caused a harm to the jumper. An airplane out of annual and in poor mechanical condition can not be identified by the jumper. If the airplane was out of annual, and had a mechanical problem that could have been detected by a mechanic, AND that problem caused a significant injury, I'd understand a lawsuit.

Understand too that an injured jumper doesn't always have control over the lawsuit. An uninsured jumper treated by a hospital is often required to sign a form giving the medical provider authority to sue on his behalf, and to promise to assist in any such suit. In that case there are conflicting documents, one that supports the drop zone and resists a lawsuit, the other supporting the hospital and a potential suit.

The law is sometimes complicated.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Nightingale 0]

depending on the wording of the waiver and the circumstances, legally, he may or may not have actually waived his right to sue. A legal document doesn't always "say" what we think it says...

That said, unless it was some kind of major screw up on the part of the other DZ, were I a DZO, I wouldn't let him jump at my DZ. If he was like the guy who pulled his cutaway instead of his main, and then flew his reserve straight into powerlines and then tried to sue the dz, there's no way in hell I'd allow him to jump.

[Iota 0]

Quote

For example, the out of date rental rig should be identified by the jumper and shouldn't be attributed to the DZ, even if the rig being out of date caused a harm to the jumper.

That makes common sense; however, think of a person at a bar. The person knows his limit, exceeds his limit, gets in a car wreck--It's the bar's fault (legally)--They shouldn't have served him that many drinks. I'd argue the same could be said for the DZ by providing out of date and potentionally dangerous equipment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a side, just playing devil's advocate with what case law has shown us thus far.

I'd like to think the poll isn't as black and white as we're trying to make it.

Example: Assuming you're doing a tandem with an instructor and something 'bad' happens and it's later determined that the instructor was on drugs and an employee of the DZ knew it, but did nothing to prevent that employee from working. The sport of skydiving aside, that's down right negligence and the injuries weren't as a result of the sport per se, but the DZ's decision to allow that employee to work so he/she could generate revenue.

I'm not implying anyting, other than I personally wouldn't want to vote without knowing all the facts surrounding the case.

Iota

-----
2+2=5 For Large Values Of 2

[billvon 2,991]

>If the airplane was out of annual, and had a mechanical problem that
> could have been detected by a mechanic, AND that problem caused a
> significant injury, I'd understand a lawsuit.

In general, I disagree. If the DZ has a waiver that states "I understand the aircraft may not be maintained to any standard, and may not be suitable for skydiving usage" and the jumper signed it, then they have been forewarned that that may be a problem. There is usually a clause to that effect in the waiver. In the instance I mentioned above, one jumper claimed that even if she signed a waiver saying the aircraft may fail due to lack of maintenance, and the aircraft failed due to poor maintenance, she would had no problem suing.

>The law is sometimes complicated.

I agree, but before the law comes what is right and wrong, recognizing that the two are not always the same.

[tombuch 0]

Quote

In general, I disagree. If the DZ has a waiver that states "I understand the aircraft may not be maintained to any standard, and may not be suitable for skydiving usage" and the jumper signed it, then they have been forewarned that that may be a problem.

I think that's a cop out on the part of a DZ. There is a federal standard that defines maintenance minimums, and as a customer I have a right to expect the airplane to at least meet that minimum standard. For a DZ to say "umm, yeah, we know the government says we need to maintain our airplanes, and we know our customers expect maintenance, but we won't provide it, you can't expect it, and you can't do anything if the airplane falls apart as a result" is pure foolish. Such a statement defines a negligent culture. If I was on a jury and saw that kind of statement on a waiver I would want to discount everything else in the document.

I DO have a right to expect at least some level of professionalism, and some standard of care from an aviation operator, regardless of what a waiver says.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[tracylu 0]

If the skydiver was "seriously" injured - then how would he be able to jump again? Obviously if the person is able to jump they have made a full recovery.

We all know the risks we are taking every time we get into that plane. Filing a lawsuit for accidents in this sport is just ridiculous. Suing a DZ is almost as stupid as that woman who sued McDonalds for hot coffee. I would not want that person jumping at my DZ.

freefall puts everything in perspective

[tombuch 0]

Quote

Suing a DZ is almost as stupid as that woman who sued McDonalds for hot coffee.

The McDonalds Coffee case wasn't as outrageous as has been presented. The customer suffered significant burns that required skin grafts. McDonalds elected to serve their coffee at a temperature far greater than other restaurants, and at a temperature that their own experts knew would cause burns. McDonalds knew there was a significant hazard of burns, and in fact more than 700 customers had been burned in prior cases. McDonalds had an opportunity to settle for 20,000 dollars that would cover the eight days of hospitalization and skin grafts, but choose not to. The jury award represented about two days of coffee profits, and was reduced by the judge, then reduced again in a final settlement.

In the end, this case forced McDonalds to reduce the temperature of their coffee to a level that doesn't cause burns, and that outcome wouldn't have happened without the economic cost of litigation. Sometimes we, as individual citizens, need access to the courts to compel giant corporations to act responsibly. That should be a last resort, but sometimes it's the only way for citizens to protect themselves.

Read about the McDonalds case here http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[Brian425 0]

I was hurt at my DZ and it was my fault. I spotted and chose to get out. My landing out is my fault and only my fault. It never occured to me to consider suing my DZ.

When I was in AFF, one thing that was made abundantly clear to us was that IF we choose to exit the aircraft, we choose to be responsible for our actions and the results. If a rental rig is out of date and I jump it, it is my fault. You are responsible to check the packing card and inspect the rig.

I agree with Tom that I am entitled to an aircraft that is maintaned to the Federal Government minimums. I am also entitled to a pilot that meets all minimum requirements.

I deserve; but, am not entitled to a pilot, DZO and staff that honestly have my safety at heart. If I don't feel that I am getting that, I will spend my money else where.

I am 100% responsible for all the things I am qualified to check and any obvious problems. I am responsible for my actions and their results. The DZ is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft.

I personally would not sue.

The only time you should look down on someone is when you are offering them your hand.

[argon 0]

Tort reform is badly needed in this country. Without getting into a "political stance" which does not belong in this forum-the bottom line is if you sign the waiver that should be that. You can't pick and choose which applies to the waiver and what doesn't. Skydiving involves the use of gear-either owned rented or borrowed,it involves an aircraft of some kind. Nobody is forcing you to do it. Regardless if an accident occurs on the runway or in the landing area-it is all part of the jump and this is what the waiver covers. If you knowingly have no medical insurance or don't have the assets to pay the bills that is your problem. The only people that benefit 100% is the trial attorneys. The fact is not all accidents are preventable-you can do everthing right and still get hurt or killed-if you can't accept it stay home. I have been recovering for 5 months from a bad tandem landing on April 24th. I wa along for the ride. Broken tailbone,rib and compression fracture of L1. I've had a lot of different emotions about the incident-bottom line I signed the waiver,I knew a risk of injury was present and decided to go anyway. Today too many people don't accept responsibility for their own actions and the fact that it doesn't cost a dime to file a personal injury lawsuit is just the tip of the iceberg. Liberals,please feel free to flame away.

***********
Freedom isn't free. Don't forget: Mother Earth is waiting for you--there is a debt you have to pay...... POPS #9329 Commercial Pilot,Instrument MEL

[syntax 0]

What about all the waivers we sign? I think everyone has heard the rumors that jumpin' has the potential to be slightly risky!

------------------------------------skydiving...the grounds the limit!

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

and as a customer I have a right to expect the airplane

When it comes to those three words in bold, the saying about death and taxes comes to mind.


How do you say "Let the buyer beware" in Latin again?

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

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The McDonalds Coffee case wasn't as outrageous as has been presented.

Dude, you just lost me.

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

[Erroll 80]

Quote

How do you say "Let the buyer beware" in Latin again?

Caveat emptor

[mr2mk1g 10]

I keep meaning to get a t-shirt made up with “Skydivers Don’t Sue” on the front. I‘d find it especially funny given my profession.

As far as I’m concerned the skydiving community is a giant family and as a skydiver I am a part of that family. I don’t sue my family members.

Now if I want to be just a customer I can be. I can turn up to the DZ as a customer, pay my money, jump and go home. But then I wouldn’t be a [I]skydiver[/I] I’d just be someone who jumped out of planes. I wouldn’t be a part of the family, just some shmo customer who turned up occasionally. Now personally, I’m a skydiver, not just someone who jumps out of planes.

As a customer I am quite happy to use the law to obtain the maximum protection it offers me. If that means suing someone because they caused me bodily injury then so be it. If that means suing someone because their negligence cause serious financial loss to me – fine.

But as I said, I’m not a customer at the DZ – I’m a member of the family. I’m not about to start suing my family members, not unless they’ve done something really fucking stupid.

Each are to find their own place in this world. Some people are skydivers; some people just jump out of aeroplanes... and we all have different definitions of what “really fucking stupid” means.

[riggerrob 643]

Canadian courts have a very simple solution to this dilemma: loser pays court costs if the judge decides it was a frivolous law suit.
This expense forces Canadian lawyers to seriously evaluate every case.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Yup - same over here. In fact it doesn't have to be frivolus - loser just pays the costs, period. If it's frivolous they get "indemnity costs" which have a %markup on them and a couple of other things that make them even bigger.

In fact if it looks frivolous there are steps you can take to get it either summarily dismissed or seek a payment up front for your costs in defending it before the case actually kicks off.

Plus there are tactical steps which force the claimant to seriously consider early settlement or face strict costs consequences if they don't get what they're claiming for.

Plus we don't have jury awards - so you never see stupidly high awards to entice crappy claims.

Plus we don't have punitive damages but for in the most serious of cases - so again no enticement to crappy claims.

Plus liability is decided by a judge - so no dumb juries just out to give a pay check to a good actor weeping in the stand.

Better IMO... but nowhere is perfect – far from it in fact.