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

[Praetorian 1]

Quote

I don’t sue my family members.

And I dont expect family members to screw me over with a big grin and then hide behind a piece of paper written to give them the right to screw me over (I'm of the opinion the tort reform includes making the waiver a little more reasonable in what it can protect the DZ and DZ employees from) It is written extreem to scare away most stupid lawsuits

Quote

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.

quote] and we all have different definitions of what “really fucking stupid” means.

The waiver allows no such personal distinction, they are written to allow the MOST EXTREEM fucking stupidity and still be suit proof!

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I have the benefit of writing from the UK where such agreements are illegal so thankfully I can make such calls.

Besides – waivers don’t stop you suing – just winning. You don’t have to lose a lawsuit for it to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I have little knowledge of exactly what waivers in the US are allowed to cover but I was under the impression that you were not able to waive liability for gross negligence. That’s probably the only situation where I would consider suing – when someone’s done something so unbelievably stupid, dangerous and reckless that it falls under the “gross negligence” heading.

And I fully accept your comment about being screwed over then having them hide behind a piece of paper.

[Praetorian 1]

Ok, so obviously we yanks could still learn a thing or two from the UK... Damn I hate admiting that

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[Airman1270 0]

Thanks Tom B. for details we may not have thought of. There might be a few cases in which jumpers were injured due to real, actual DZ negligence. In such cases, I'd hesitate to blacklist anyone.

I'm a little sensitive to this since I was kicked off two DZ's. While fresh off student status in the mid 1980's I inadvertently stepped on some toes at the Long Island DZ (Not the big one currently operating at Calverton.) They said I was grounded "for life." A
few years later I almost went in due to a hard reserve pull at Woodstock, Connecticut. The DZO was paranoid of the courtroom and banned me, saying if something happened he could be held liable for allowing me to jump after I "proved" that I might have problems. He was nervous, in part, because I didn't jump very often - a result of having to drive 3+ hours out of state to the DZ because I couldn't jump near my home.

I broke my ankle on my first jump (September 30, 1982 - happy anniversary to me...) While recovering, I was taken by surprise by the number of people who suggested I sue the DZ. Even after I said the accident was my fault, they still insisted someone owed me something. These are the people who end up on juries. A real eye-opener.

Cheers,
Jon

[tombuch 0]

Quote

I broke my ankle on my first jump (September 30, 1982 - happy anniversary to me...) While recovering, I was taken by surprise by the number of people who suggested I sue the DZ. Even after I said the accident was my fault, they still insisted someone owed me something.

I had a similar experience following a really bad accident involving a landing in high voltage power lines at night (completely my fault), more than 10 years ago. Just after being moved from the emergency department to a hospital room, I was interviewed by a nurse with a standard intake form asking about things like past health, and medical insurance. One of the questions was "Is there anybody you can sue?" I told her the only person I could sue was me, she followed up by asking if I could sue the skydiving place, or the power company, and seemed convinced there must be somebody else at fault. I made it clear there was nobody else involved, and nobody to sue. I have no idea what she wrote on the form.

That seems to be a pretty standard set of questions used to give the hospital a few options if the patient isn't able to pay. I had insurance at the time and there was no problem with payment, so I never heard about that form again.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

And leads to them not filing righteous cases where the probability for success isn't certain. I don't see that as an improvement.

Simple problems have simple solutions. Hard problems don't.

[falxori 0]

Quote

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.

this is (in my opinion) where the DZs which issue these waivers have crossed the line of trust.
you all talk about "being a family" and "dont sue friends". well, once the DZ did something knowingly that risks my life, they are no longer my friends.

things i can check/ my fault? i wont sue anyone.
a poorly maintained plane or a tandem master on drugs mean the DZ broke their word to me (and not every word has to be written in a legal form).

the "waiver" type of contracts is often rejected in court anyway since its a one sided agreement and not the result of negotiations.
especialy if the DZ actions were criminal.
O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[Nightingale 0]

before I made my first jump, I had Perris fax me the waiver, because I'd heard they were complicated. my lawyer explained to me exactly what rights I was legally signing away, and what rights I still had, despite the wording in the waiver. Legally, there are certain rights you can't sign away.
I was cool with my lawyer's explanation, and signed the waiver with full understanding of exactly what I was and was not agreeing to.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

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.

Ditto.
We ALL KNOW that we skydive at our OWN RISK. I can see how someone might hedge if he were injured because of some failure on the part of the DZ, or outright negligence (although we also know that we sign a waiver that indemnifies them even for that!), but if someone caused his own troubles and then sued, that person is shitwad, in my book, and I have no compunctions about him being banned from skydiving anywhere, ever again. You just don't do that, not when the fault was yours, especially. You take your lumps and leave people who didn't cause them ALONE.

Why should a DZ be expected to invite a skydiver to jump there when he has proven he will not keep good faith with the contract waiver he signed?! Is it fair to expect the DZ business, and all the people who depend on it, from owners, employees, fun jumpers and tandem tourists on down, to expose themselves to the kind of risk this jumper presents? I don't think so.

Break faith with the "you jump at your own risk" tenet of our sport and you rightly lose credibility across the board.

What I don't understand is, if the jumper caused his own injuries, and the DZ can't be found at fault (witness other skydivers had no problem on the same jump, etc., no one collided or interfered, etc.), what would be the stated reason on the lawsuit for suing the DZ? You can't, hopefully sue them just because they conducted the skydiving operations there!

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

> 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.

That does get into what I consider a gray area. I have always wondered how it got to be a standard thing to include, in the waiver, a statement that you won't sue people connected with the DZ even if they are negligent. That seems kinda reaching. The premise of suing justifiably is all about determining if they were negligent! And I think it could be called dicey to give anyone carte-blanche to be negligent, knowing they cannot be sued. Isn't that a disincentive to do things right? I mean, granted, do things negligently just because you can and you won't likely build much of a business, but still...

There are certain rights you cannot even sign away. I guess that's why courts let a suit against a DZ proceed. They scoff at the idea of a hold-harmless waiver that indemnifies an agency against liability explicitly even if it is outright negligent. Isn't it established in commonlaw that if your negligence harms another, you can be held liable for damages?

For the record, I believe I would never sue a DZ. I believe in the doctrine of being responsible for the outcome of my skydiving.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

this is (in my opinion) where the DZs which issue these waivers have crossed the line of trust.
you all talk about "being a family" and "dont sue friends". well, once the DZ did something knowingly that risks my life, they are no longer my friends.

things i can check/ my fault? i wont sue anyone.
a poorly maintained plane or a tandem master on drugs mean the DZ broke their word to me (and not every word has to be written in a legal form).

the "waiver" type of contracts is often rejected in court anyway since its a one sided agreement and not the result of negotiations.
especialy if the DZ actions were criminal.
O

You make good points about the DZ breaking faith with the "friend," but as for th one-sidedness of a contract waiver that is not agreed upon by negotiation: signing the waiver is not compulsory. Failure to "negotiate" can easily result in you turning your back on the contract and the skydive. I can't see that the contract would be invalid just because it was not the result of a negotiation. You don't have to sign it! That's your negotiation! If you tried to negotiate on a clause and were denied, that just means "talks broke down and no agreement was reached," i.e. the contract never reached completion, and the terms of doing a skydive were never met, and the skydive doesn't happen.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I was interviewed by a nurse with a standard intake form asking about things like past health, and medical insurance. One of the questions was "Is there anybody you can sue?" I told her the only person I could sue was me, she followed up by asking if I could sue the skydiving place, or the power company, and seemed convinced there must be somebody else at fault. I made it clear there was nobody else involved, and nobody to sue. I have no idea what she wrote on the form.

That is SICK. And I think I would have demanded to see what was written on the form.

Sue the power company? What would be the tort?: "They didn't need to put power lines there!!" "They didn't light the entire length of every powerline so that it would be visible to skydivers!!"

It's scary indeed how popular is this notion that never is any harm done that someone can't be sued for.

-Jeffrey

That seems to be a pretty standard set of questions used to give the hospital a few options if the patient isn't able to pay. I had insurance at the time and there was no problem with payment, so I never heard about that form again.

[skydiverton 0]

Quote

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.

Yep,
very bad business decision to let this jumper in.
I've seen people send away for less because the DZ-owner does not want trouble. For me this would be absolutely a no-go

As a visiting jumper I do not care about waivers simply because I'm responsible for myself and I don't blame others for my mistakes

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit,
Especially when you are jumping a sport rig

[TangBu 1]

He should've told the nurse he was thinking of suing the hospital - I bet that would've shut her up .

Quote

Quote

I was interviewed by a nurse with a standard intake form asking about things like past health, and medical insurance. One of the questions was "Is there anybody you can sue?" I told her the only person I could sue was me, she followed up by asking if I could sue the skydiving place, or the power company, and seemed convinced there must be somebody else at fault. I made it clear there was nobody else involved, and nobody to sue. I have no idea what she wrote on the form.

That is SICK. And I think I would have demanded to see what was written on the form.

[skydver 0]

Quote

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

YUH THINK......... every waiver is about the same. in a nut shell it says if you're intent on trying to kill your self....we will help. every pack job you look at this orange square panel thats tells you this sport will kill you, or at least seriously hurt you and yet we pay money to attempt suicide every chance we get.
i am an adult. i make my own decisions. if i get hurt or die then so be it. it is my responsibility to decide if the equipment is dangerous or if the airplane/dz looks like an unsafe operation. if it does i go somewhere else. but its my decision, and my responsibility..would i sue? HELL NO..would i let a jumper that sued another dz jump at my dz? HELL NO.....

[kallend 2,026]

I have mixed feelings over this issue.

You can do everything right and still die. That is all the more reason to do everything right.

Shit happens, but it happens faster with an unsafe operation.

No waiver can indemnify anyone for criminal actions. Since waivers are legal documents, they cannot be allowed to condone illegal activities. Once criminal negligence is involved, the waiver is a meaningless piece of paper.

I have no sympathy whatever for a DZO who runs a shoddy operation in violation of the FARs or other laws, causes death or injury to a skydiver as a result, and gets sued. I doubt any court would have sympathy either.

...

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

[billyrocket 0]

anybody who would file a law suit because of skydiving injuries after having signed a waiver is a piece of sh-- ! regardless of the circumstances or severity of the injuries. the waiver is clearly intended to remove anybody involved from the threat of lawsuits. it's not "the DZ" or the insurance companies that get sued... it's you and me! because when insurance companies pay out money, they raise the rates for all drop zones... who then have to raise their rates for jumps... and then we all have to pay more. or it gets so high that skydiving comes to an end. any jumper that sues is selling all of us out for their own bad luck or stupidity... and we should treat that traitor like the piece of sh-- that he or she is! " skydiving is a dangerous activity that can result in serious injury or death" ! ... which part of that do they not understand?

[billvon 2,989]

>I think that's a cop out on the part of a DZ.

Why? Should a law prohibit you from jumping out of an AN-2, even if it does not meet FAA standards?

In any case, that's not the issue. I can understand, and have no problem with, people who refuse to sign a waiver because they don't want to take the risk. My question is - would you sign a waiver agreeing that you understand that the aircraft may not be maintained to minumum standards, then sue them when you discover the airplane is not maintained to minimum standards?

>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.

Of course. I am sure you have seen other examples of a negligent culture. Would you jump/work at a DZ that had such a negligent culture? If you continue to do so after realizing that it is negligent, is it your risk to take?

[billvon 2,989]

>The premise of suing justifiably is all about determining if they were
>negligent!

Right. That's accepted in every day life - if you drop a hammer into a crowd because you're careless, and someone is injured, then someone can successfully sue you if they can show you were just plain careless.

That's why there's a waiver. Sometimes people do dangerous things - in our case, we skydive. I endanger other people's lives on every jump, as do all skydivers. (And for those of you about to say "I would never do that!" - can you absolutely, positively guarantee someone won't someday knock into your reserve handle in the door?)

The aircraft in skydiving are not maintained to airline standards, or often even to part-135 standards. They are less safe than airliners because the DZO wants to save money. The waiver points this out, and explains that you can be killed because someone else is negligent in dozens of ways. Maybe they screw up and feather the wrong prop, causing an unsurvivable crash on takeoff. Maybe they try to make the runway after an engine-out and end up paralyzing you. Maybe they spot you over a lake and you drown. Maybe they don't use regulation fuel tanks and their jet-A becomes contaminated. Those are the risks in skydiving, and that's one reason we have the waivers - so you know that stuff can happen.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The aircraft in skydiving are not maintained to airline standards, or often even to part-135 standards. They are less safe than airliners because the DZO wants to save money. The waiver points this out, and explains that you can be killed because someone else is negligent in dozens of ways. Maybe they screw up and feather the wrong prop, causing an unsurvivable crash on takeoff. Maybe they try to make the runway after an engine-out and end up paralyzing you. Maybe they spot you over a lake and you drown. Maybe they don't use regulation fuel tanks and their jet-A becomes contaminated. Those are the risks in skydiving, and that's one reason we have the waivers - so you know that stuff can happen.

That would be the non legal answer, and a rather dishonest one.

The purpose of the waiver is to deflect litigation, pure and simple. And like many people's employement contracts, contains illegal provisions.

Is it responsible to sue a DZ after you crash and burn? Usually not. Is it reponsible for a DZ to refuse 100% of blame for anything that might happen? Hell no. Absolute truths are rarely valid. And I don't think I've seen in a waiver a statement that the DZ may choose to ignore FAA laws at my risk. For that matter, that choice puts the sport at risk - just as one skydiver not spotting and taking out another plane could kill jumping, so would an unmaintained plane crashing into someone else. If we have to pay more $$ for jump tickets for them to stay in compliance, so be it. Saving a buck is not a legitimate excuse on their part.

[billvon 2,989]

>And I don't think I've seen in a waiver a statement that the DZ may
> choose to ignore FAA laws at my risk.

From the Skydive Kansas waiver:
-----------------------------------------------
The Released Entities are or may be selling, renting, lending, packing, repairing; or letting others or myself use equipment (including aircraft). All such equipment is provided or made available only in an “AS IS” condition. The Released Entities have not made, and do not make, any representation, guarantee, or warranty of merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose, or otherwise, regarding any such equipment. All warranties, representations, and guarantees of any nature are hereby expressly disclaimed.
-------------------------

In other words, the aircraft is not guaranteed to meet ANY standards for airworthiness, FAA or otherwise.

>If we have to pay more $$ for jump tickets for them to stay in
> compliance, so be it.

I agree 100%, and encourage people to put safety over cost. However, you can't have it both ways - sign a waiver that you do not agree with to save money, or jump at a DZ you like, then decide you don't really agree with it only after you have been injured. Either agree with it and sign it, or disagree and jump elsewhere.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>And I don't think I've seen in a waiver a statement that the DZ may
> choose to ignore FAA laws at my risk.

From the Skydive Kansas waiver:
-----------------------------------------------
The Released Entities are or may be selling, renting, lending, packing, repairing; or letting others or myself use equipment (including aircraft). All such equipment is provided or made available only in an “AS IS” condition. The Released Entities have not made, and do not make, any representation, guarantee, or warranty of merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose, or otherwise, regarding any such equipment. All warranties, representations, and guarantees of any nature are hereby expressly disclaimed.
-------------------------

In other words, the aircraft is not guaranteed to meet ANY standards for airworthiness, FAA or otherwise.

For a legal perspective, labeling something AS-IS still doesn't give you carte blanche. Houses are sold AS-IS, but if you don't disclose a known flaw, the buyer can and will go after you for recourse, and they will win.

For planes that means they aren't warranting that the 182 might not suffer a failure and crash. These are old planes. But again that's not the same as they falsified the repair records.

I think everyone here would agree that the jumper in an incident is wholely responsible for his injuries 9x.y% of the time. X and probably Y are 9s. But the waiver wants to insist it's 100%. That isn't supported by law, and most of it is already supported by the assumption of risk notion in most states. Skydiving usually is the classic example in defining such statutes. So many will take people up without a waiver for a nominal charge.

In the rare case that a guy sued his DZ, but is actually out to jump again, I'd want to know the circumstances before going to the likely conclusion that he should be blacklisted by all.

[tbrown 26]

I cannot speak for any of the DZ's I jump at, so did not answer the question as it was phrased. But anyone who sues a dropzone, especially for their own mistake should be blackballed, blacklisted, shunned, silenced, treated as if they weren't even there at any dropzone. Might be a shame if some fuckin' kids slashed their tires too...

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[falxori 0]

Quote

because when insurance companies pay out money, they raise the rates for all drop zones...

thats a foolish logic. if you dont mean them to ever pay, why bother having insurance at all?

Quote

any jumper that sues is selling all of us out for their own bad luck or stupidity...

right, when you talk about accidents caused by the jumper, not by the DZ "bending the rules"
i would say a DZO who saves a few $$ on your safety is selling you out.

Quote

" skydiving is a dangerous activity that can result in serious injury or death" ! ... which part of that do they not understand?

probably the part "skydiving is risky enough as it is and there is no need to add more risk to it by a poorly maintained aircraft or a JM on drugs."
not everything is visible in a DZ and there are many things a DZO can do that compromises your safety without you ever knowing about it.

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

>And I don't think I've seen in a waiver a statement that the DZ may
> choose to ignore FAA laws at my risk.

From the Skydive Kansas waiver:
-----------------------------------------------
The Released Entities are or may be selling, renting, lending, packing, repairing; or letting others or myself use equipment (including aircraft). All such equipment is provided or made available only in an “AS IS” condition. The Released Entities have not made, and do not make, any representation, guarantee, or warranty of merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose, or otherwise, regarding any such equipment. All warranties, representations, and guarantees of any nature are hereby expressly disclaimed.
-------------------------

In other words, the aircraft is not guaranteed to meet ANY standards for airworthiness, FAA or otherwise.

>If we have to pay more $$ for jump tickets for them to stay in
> compliance, so be it.

I agree 100%, and encourage people to put safety over cost. However, you can't have it both ways - sign a waiver that you do not agree with to save money, or jump at a DZ you like, then decide you don't really agree with it only after you have been injured. Either agree with it and sign it, or disagree and jump elsewhere.

Nothing anyone signs can condone an illegal activity. Doing so knowingly makes you an accessory.

A document presented as (and explicitly stating that it is) a legal document cannot exonerate a DZO from the consequences of his/her illegal actions. The DZO can't have their cake and eat it too.

...

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