Liability as an Instructor - How to Minimize It?

[SkymonkeyONE 4]

Quote

I am loathe to ask this...especially on DZ.com forums.Has anyone ever been presented with a situation where the gear provided is less than safe, and the attitude/actions of the dzo dont address the problems? Or, the way in which the problem is addressed is wrong? If so then what did you do about it...

Yes, I have and no, I did not jump the gear. It was shit gear and it was clearly pencil-whipped. I was visiting the out-of-state DZ to make a quick jump and got asked to help out with a few tandems. I declined and told the DZO that he was out of his mind to be using those rigs and that he ought to fire his rigger. The reserve closing loops on both of his tandem rigs were so loose that the PC was popped up at a wild angle under the closing flaps.

Chuck

[Skydivesg 7]

Assuming he doesn't do something stupid like collide with the tandem pair. What exposure does the vidographer have if he films the boken leg (or worse)?

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Assuming he doesn't do something stupid like collide with the tandem pair. What exposure does the vidographer have if he films the boken leg (or worse)?

He has the same potential exposure as anyone who stands accused of a negligent tort, whether rightly or wrongly. If he's sued, he'll have to defend himself, and that can be monstrously expensive, even if he wins. Also, you never know what theory of liability - backed up by expert testimony - might be asserted against him; and for that and other reasons, it really is impossible to predict with certainty what a jury's verdict might be.

[BClear 0]

As a practicing personal injury attorney with my own firm I'd have to say don't worry too much about it. A lot of what I've read on the post is half-truths and a large portion is general ignorance of the law. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions. And ignore the attorneys who have a general knowledge of PI law but no experience in the business.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

As a practicing personal injury attorney with my own firm I'd have to say don't worry too much about it. A lot of what I've read on the post is half-truths and a large portion is general ignorance of the law. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions. And ignore the attorneys who have a general knowledge of PI law but no experience in the business.

Thank you for your offer. I'm also an attorney (see my profile), and have been practicing for about 25 years, variously in the public sector, law firms, in-house counsel and my own firm. Overall, I'd say about 60% of my career has been in personal injury and other tort law, roughly equal amounts of defense-side and plaintiffs'-side. I've done a lot of counseling of business and professional clients on risk management, and I've had a number of clients in the skydiving industry - riggers, gear shop owners, instructors and jump plane owners.

I've posted frequently here on liability and other legal issues in areas in which I've practiced in my long-ish career (criminal, family law, corporate, etc.). Several other lawyers on here do the same; and although we often agree on legal issues, we certainly don't always, and we have no hesitancy to debate each other when we disagree. I cordially invite you to join the mix.

I agree that you'll find a lot of incorrect presumptions, even advice, about the law given by non-lawyers. That's why the other lawyers and I do our best to give our own careful analyses, because if you wing it on here without being sure you know what you're talking about, there are LOTS of very intelligent, articulate posters here, from all walks of life, who will call bullshit on you in a heartbeat.

Oh, and if you ever have any questions, feel free to ask!


Edit to add:
One more thing. As you know, lawyer-bashing is quite the sport. This forum is no definitely no exception. Personally, as a matter of policy I've decided to almost never rise to the bait, both in life and on this forum. But that's just me.

[marks2065 0]

what i would like to know is if you are an employee are you still likely to get sued? i know if you incorperate and become a company they can sue you. there are some dz's that have you incorperate, does this ad a layer of protection to the dzo ?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

what i would like to know is if you are an employee are you still likely to get sued? i know if you incorperate and become a company they can sue you. there are some dz's that have you incorperate, does this ad a layer of protection to the dzo ?

NOTE: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. CONSULT YOUR OWN ATTORNEY.

You can be sued, whether you're an individual, a corporation, an LLC, whatever. If you're a self-incorporated instructor, rigger, etc., and the attorney aims to sue you, he will probably sue both you individually and your corporation.

Likely to be sued? Well, that depends on the attorney, but I will say this -
I know the practice of "sue everyone" gets brutally dissed by non-lawyers, and I understand why they feel that way; but as a matter of due diligence to their clients - as well as to protect themselves from malpractice liability - many plaintiffs' attorneys feel it necessary to - at least initially - sue anyone and everyone who, based on initial investigation, might possibly be deemed to share even 1% liability for the accident. Then, as the case goes on, and more evidence is developed through further investigation, formal "discovery", expert reports and pre-trial motions, sometimes the group of defendants gets whittled down a bit prior to trial. Now that's simply the reality of it.

Will the staff-person's being incorporated protect the DZO? - Well, if the staffer is an employee, the DZO is (generally) presumed to be vicariously liable for the staffer's actions within the ordinary scope of his employment. But if the staffer is an "independent contractor", and especially if he's self-incorporated, what that does is it creates an independent entity for which the DZO will claim he is not vicariously liable. Also, defendants in multi-defendant lawsuits generally don't just defend against the plaintiff, they also cross-claim against each other - essentially they defend by suing each other within the original lawsuit ("It's not my fault, it's his fault"). A DZO might get more leverage cross-claiming against a staffer who is independent and/or self-incorporated than he might against a staffer who is his employee.

[BClear 0]

Best way to protect yourself from a PI suit? Don't carry insurance.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Best way to protect yourself from a PI suit? Don't carry insurance.

How does an insurance policy effect the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of someone's actions?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

Best way to protect yourself from a PI suit? Don't carry insurance.

How does an insurance policy effect the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of someone's actions?

.

It doesn't.

But lawyers generally don't seem to bother suing someone who hasn't got a dime to squeeze.

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

[Andy9o8 2]

You win the prize.
Which by coincidence, just happens to be 1 dime to squeeze.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Best way to protect yourself from a PI suit? Don't carry insurance.

And some skydiving businesses do just that, for that reason.

...to which I would add, "..and don't have substantial assets in your personal name."

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

You win the prize.
Which by coincidence, just happens to be 1 dime to squeeze.

Nothing personal, just the way I see it.

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

[BClear 0]

Nobody likes working for free let alone covering expenses for a case you'll never make a dime from. Unfortunatly I've noticed way too many legitimate medical mal cases getting passed on from a lack of adequate funds. That and the older the victim the less likely someone will pick it up. Speaking of which I wonder if instructors are aware that their young students being injured/killed would probably be much more costly than an elderly student.

[JohnDeere 0]

To BClear and Andy9o8.....

So who are you guys charging by the hour to give us legal advise during normal buis. hours????? I hope neither of you are my attorney

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[BClear 0]

Work on a contingency fee here.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Work on a contingency fee here.

Here?? you'll go broke!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

You win the prize.
Which by coincidence, just happens to be 1 dime to squeeze.

Nothing personal, just the way I see it.

That was my way of saying your post was 100% correct.

[BClear 0]

And as a qualifier I'd like to mention that unless the lawyer wants to starve they don't have much of a choice but to approach intake in that manner.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

And as a qualifier I'd like to mention that unless the lawyer wants to starve they don't have much of a choice but to approach intake in that manner.

Definitely. For a standard personal injury case, say from a fall on a sidewalk or a car accident, if the potential defendant doesn't have an insurance policy with adequate (for the case) limits of liability, most plaintiffs' attorneys will decline to take the case.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Which is why CSPA does not offer instructors insurance but does offer them a legal defense fund.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Best way to protect yourself from a PI suit? Don't carry insurance.

How does an insurance policy effect the outcome, settlement, jury trial of a case?

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[BClear 0]

I'll explain. Personal injury cases are 99.9% taken on a contingency basis its how we make a living. That means as an attorney we have to file, investigate, litigate etc. fronting the costs generally in anticipation of getting a verdict in our favor. That means if the costs of litigating a case are say around 10k (and in a case involving skydiving odds are its way past that number) and the defendant has no insurance with no real assets in his name, taking the case would end up with us taking a hit in the wallet and the client being pissed because they thought they won the lottery and never really understood how the system works. So in short the insurance policy effects the outcome, settlement, jury trial of the case in the manner of good luck finding an attorney that will file the case knowing there is no insurance to foot the bill. And you better believe thats the first thing we look for. Actually in a similar scenario now with a wrongful shooting case and whether there is any premise liability insurance to be found. Just the private investigator fees alone come close to ten grand and odds are I'll never see a dime of it back. I've turned away legit medical malpractice cases where an individual was missing a limb because of a Dr.'s screwup and in one instance suffered brain damage simply because the plaintiff was too old, didn't have that much to live most likely and the payout would never possibly match what it would cost to litigate the case. So in summary no insurance generally means no PI suit to begin with, sure an attorney will sign it and investigate but the reality is when they find out theres no insurance it's going to be dropped 9 times out of 10 out of the fact theres no insurance alone.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

I'll explain. Personal injury cases are 99.9% taken on a contingency basis its how we make a living. That means as an attorney we have to file, investigate, litigate etc. fronting the costs generally in anticipation of getting a verdict in our favor.

How often do PI cases go to the jury or have a judge rule on them?
Is it possible that a verdict is never attained and that some sort of ‘settlement’ is reached between or among some or all of the parties?

Quote

That means if the costs of litigating a case are say around 10k (and in a case involving skydiving odds are its way past that number) and the defendant has no insurance with no real assets in his name, taking the case would end up with us taking a hit in the wallet and the client being pissed because they thought they won the lottery and never really understood how the system works. So in short the insurance policy effects the outcome, settlement, jury trial of the case in the manner of good luck finding an attorney that will file the case knowing there is no insurance to foot the bill. And you better believe thats the first thing we look for.

Would the insurance company also apply leverage to settle a lawsuit because it would be more cost effective to do that as opposed to pursuing ligtigation and exonerating their insured?

Quote

Actually in a similar scenario now with a wrongful shooting case and whether there is any premise liability insurance to be found. Just the private investigator fees alone come close to ten grand and odds are I'll never see a dime of it back. I've turned away legit medical malpractice cases where an individual was missing a limb because of a Dr.'s screwup and in one instance suffered brain damage simply because the plaintiff was too old, didn't have that much to live most likely and the payout would never possibly match what it would cost to litigate the case. So in summary no insurance generally means no PI suit to begin with, sure an attorney will sign it and investigate but the reality is when they find out theres no insurance it's going to be dropped 9 times out of 10 out of the fact theres no insurance alone.

The money trail is what counts, not what is right or wrong.
This is so obvious. Recently I have heard people, that I used to think were quite intelligent, totally ignore the concept that insurance and the insurance company’s business decisions are in the driver’s seat.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[AndyMan 7]

I'm curious how effectively you'd be able to go after an instructors standard homeowners policy. Would it be a hindrance to you if the policy was in a spouses name? Would a typical homeowners policy cover this kind of liability?

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.