rantoul lawsuit

i read a disturbing article today in skydiveing about some members of the family of tim kalendek (the guy that was struck and killed by the rotor of the helicopter last year) while i feel bad for them i feel worse for those who witnessed it because they had no choice HE did HE was told not once but THREE times NOT NOT NOT to go out there but he snuck out and hid in the corn and jumped out when the chopper took off and unfortunately got killed .to think that a bunch of lawyers has probably fed the family a load of crap to go on with this B.S. suit is just WRONG WRONG WRONG i know the procedure that they take on takeoff as i have been on the chopper many times and have watched many times and know that when ther was room it was allowed to take pictures and video when the pilot knew at all times where the camara person would be but at rantoul there was not as much room so they would not let anyone i repeat not let anyone out there but he unfortunatly made a wrong decision and hid where they could not see him so the crewman seeing that the way was clear signaled the pilot that all was clear and he took off as he took off tim jumped from the corn to get his video and the worst possible event occured i say that the pilot should be commended as his coolness in a very high stress situation saved the lives of all on board the helicopter so once again i say that this lawsuit is WRONG WRONG WRONG and folks though i feel bad for you you need to forget the pressures of attorneys and drop this baseless lawsuit to go for deep pockets all you are doing is creating more grief for all involved including your self the one family member who said he saw him talking to the crew just prior to take off you know that you have stretched the truth a bit maybe you saw him with them earlier as they were telling him not to go out there but not as the aircraft was takeing off just my two cents worth thanx for your attention till later have fun & love each other seeya mb65johnny gates

I didn't hear about this guy, could someone fill me in?

Quote

I didn't hear about this guy, could someone fill me in?

/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=189987
/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=401441

I was at Rantoul when this happened (though, fortunately, nowhere near the incident) and there was huge discrepancies between the stories of those with first and second hand information. Fact is, I, along with so many others, just adore Rod (and I certainly had no hesitation flying with him afterwards) and definitely want the 'Muppet' version to be true... but there are enough people disputing this version to raise serious questions.

Perhaps the lawsuit will be partly a good thing because the truth is more likely to come out once and for all and the rumour and speculation can stop?

Just my 2 cents worth.

Cheers,
Eiley

johnny,
i agree with you. I think most of us here agree with you.
(not trying to speak for everyone, but everyone I've talked to about it would agree...)

the whole thing is so sad, on so many levels.

peace
lew

i wonder if the deceased signed any waiver forms, since he was a photographer instead of a sky diver. if he didn't, that opens a huge portal for his family in this ever litigeous society. i'm not sure what the rules are on a dropzone for choppers take-off and landing perimeters, but where i work, there is a yellow circle painted around the propellers blades and a painted yellow walkway to the storage area and door to get in and be seated. (on Offshore Drilling Rigs, And Storage Areas For The Sikorskis) everyone knows Rod did not do anything out of the ordinary, that said, whether the photographer had permission or not, he should have had enough common sense to stay clear of the rotor, and motor blades. it's a rather simple observation that if you are struck by the blades, that's all she wrote. while my heart goes out to the individuals family and friends i would hate to see someone/anyone profiting off of anothers death, regardless of how it happened, unless it was an impaired operator of any type of machinery UTI of any illegal substances, then i'd go for the juglar.

Quote

i wonder if the deceased signed any waiver forms, since he was a photographer instead of a sky diver.

I'm pretty sure everyone at Rantoul, including spectators, had to sign a waiver and receive a colour-coded wristband (orange for skydivers, purple for students, red for staff, green for spectators etc). Security at the gates was diligent in making you flash your wristband before entering - nobody was allowed in without one. We even offered one of the volunteers at the gate a beer and he said he couldn't whilst on duty!

Quote

whether the photographer had permission or not, he should have had enough common sense to stay clear of the rotor, and motor blades. it's a rather simple observation that if you are struck by the blades, that's all she wrote.

Unfortunately 'common sense' seems to have fallen by the wayside in this day and age. Especially when there's a potential for a payout. God forbid we actually take responsibility for our own actions

I, too, hope that Rod is completely exonerated of all liability.

Cheers,
Eiley

I also was at Rantoul in 2002 and it was terrible that this happened.

I went on the chopper before and after this happened and would like to say that all REASONABLE SAFETY MEASURES seemed to be in place (apart from wrapping the chopper in bubble wrap !!!).

Once again we have someone (Rod) who has gone out of his way to help us have fun now stuck in the middle of a LAWSUIT !!!

Obviously if there was to be proven negligence or perhaps maliciousness involved then the persons involved should be punished but where there appears to just be a terrible tragedy then we must accept it for the terrible accident that it appears to be.

I read a good article about base (written by Tom A - I think) where he suggests that in addition to all the waivers and other bits that you sign , that you need to sit down with your family and explain that it is your choice to participate in sports such as these and ask them not to sue unless there is VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE of malice or negligence. I believe he also suggests leaving a letter to the same effect somewhere it can be found (perhaps with a friend or lawyer - someone not directly related to you so there can be no doubt as to YOUR WISHES in the event of a tragedy). It may seem morbid but at least you know that if something ever happens then hopefully your death will not cause further harm to those who gave you such enjoyment in life.

Perhaps we could have a central DZ.com register like a donor register where we can specify that we do not wish for our relatives to sue anyone connected with this wonderful sport of ours EXCEPT IN PROVEN CASES OF MALICE or PROVEN NEGLIGENCE (such as a lack of aircraft maintainance or the person being under the influence of drink / drugs at the time of incident.

I for one would readily sign-up I hate this sue-happy BS

Jump in front of fast-moving vehicle = PAIN!

He should have learned that in kindergarten!

No sympathy!

he was a skydiver and did sign the waiver

With this lawsuit, the person that witnessed the horrible accident will probably have to relive those moments and give a statement. I remember talking with him most of the night after it happened. He was pretty torn up about the whole thing. I feel bad for him.

Quote

you need to sit down with your family and explain that it is your choice to participate in sports such as these and ask them not to sue unless there is VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE of malice or negligence. I believe he also suggests leaving a letter to the same effect somewhere it can be found (perhaps with a friend or lawyer - someone not directly related to you so there can be no doubt as to YOUR WISHES in the event of a tragedy).

Done....have it in my will that no one is to be sued for any reason for any association with my possible demise in any way related to skydiving.

I really hope they drop or lose the lawsuit. I can't really understand how they can expect or even want to win. I know the guy that was killed has a brother that's a skydiver. I hope he's not part of the suit.

I work with a lot of helicopter pilots. Sitting at lunch with 3 of them one day, the conversation happened to turn to this type of accident. 2 of the 3 of them had taken heads off with rotor blades. Neither of them were at fault, but I doubt that makes it any easier. It's an unfortunate type of accident that just happens every once in a while when people stand where they shouldn't.

Dave

Quote

afterwards) and definitely want the 'Muppet' version to be true... but there are enough people disputing this version to raise serious questions.

Perhaps the lawsuit will be partly a good thing because the truth is more likely to come out once and for all and the rumour and speculation can stop?

I read the back threads and didn't see the disputed facts. Seemed rather straight forward - guy was turned down for permission to be out there and disregarded, put a chopper full of people at risk, paid the ultimate price.

The cost of getting to the bottom of this in court will likely run 6 figures, and that's without a judgement. Guess who pays? Moreover, insurance might actually settle rather than spend that much for what appears to be a simple defense. Unfortunately, that means no case law is established. This is particularly problematic in the scuba world. It only encourages future litigation.

Quote

Perhaps the lawsuit will be partly a good thing because the truth is more likely to come out once and for all and the rumour and speculation can stop?

You obvously have never been through a trial here in the U.S.

The truth rarely comes out. At least in the things I have been involved in.

It all comes down to who has the money.

Like KelpDiver said it will probably settle because insurance companies do not like publicity.

Laters,

KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

Done....have it in my will that no one is to be sued for any reason for any association with my possible demise in any way related to skydiving.

I dont agree with that, yes shit happens yes we make mistakes, but there should always be questions and if it avoids futher mistakes then maybe court action should be taken.

Your six figure number is pretty accurate. It is likely covered with insurance. I'd reckon that the insurer has a nuisance reserve for it of 5 or 10k.

People don't like to go to trial for the same reason people have insurance. They are risk averse, and therefor most actions don't see trial.

Then again, there is a chance that this can be taken care of before trial through a dispositive motion. i don't know, but I'd love to find out what the procedural posture is on this thing.

Quote

Quote

Done....have it in my will that no one is to be sued for any reason for any association with my possible demise in any way related to skydiving.

I dont agree with that, yes shit happens yes we make mistakes, but there should always be questions and if it avoids futher mistakes then maybe court action should be taken.

Well I don't agree with you

I agree with Phillykev on this one ....

We aren't saying don't question HOW something happened or that we should not try to establish the cause of accident and then learn from it so that safety improves. But what we are saying is that where something happens ACCIDENTALLY then we would ask that our relatives etc do NOT SUE the companies involved.

Why should everyone involved in our sport suffer with higher costs etc (to pay for ever larger insurance policies) when if we all took a conscious decision to not sue EXCEPT in the situation of PROVEN MALICE OR NEGLIGENCE then the insurance costs to all of us would be (theoretically !!!) lower.

Less opportunist "get-rich quick" claims = Lower premiums for all of us.

This must surely be a good thing !!!

You can prove negligence in just about anything. Juries are awarding people money for their own stupidity on a regular basis. So, you need to include negiligence in your waiver.

"Malice"? I would agree. That might be worthy of a suit.

Speaking as a lawyer, the biggest difficulty I see with the waiver you suggest is that in order to have a case of "proven malice or negligence" you will almost always have to have a trial... or at least some kind of formal admission (rare). Without that nothing is "proven".

I know that sounds like semantics... but that’s a big part of my job. If this phrase is in your will you may want to think about re-wording it.

Now you would probably hope that your family would be willing to follow the spirit of your will, not just the letter. More often than you would think however, families are happy to challenge a will applying the wording strictly if they think they can get some money (or perhaps right a perceived wrong).

[Remember, I’m not questioning your decision to have a waiver - that’s your choice. Just trying to offer some helpful advice to any who might want such a waiver]

Isnt there normally a police investigation into any death to see if anyone would be at fault, or to find any "malice or negligence?"

How many police investigations are there each year that result in a not guilty verdict?

(taking aside arguments about how well the legal/jury system works) Do you think the police always get the right answer? Would you would be in favour of abolishing courts and bringing in Judge Dread? I hope these questions are rhetorical and that the answer is no.

Police investigations don't always "prove" much.
"Proven" really needs to be defined in this instance. If you are happy for the results of a police investigation to be the deciding factor in whether or not your family brings a law suit, that’s cool, just make sure the wording of your clause accurately reflects that wish.

The family of the skydiver could know whether there was malice or negligence without a lawsuit. Maybe I'm being naieve, but I think police investigations rarely get false evidence, and the verdicts are decided in court where anything can and does happen. The judge can decide if there is enough evidence for a trial based on the police investigation, and the family of a killed skydiver could make a similar decision on whether or not to sue.

Re-read this quote from my first post.

Quote

Now you would probably hope that your family would be willing to follow the spirit of your will, not just the letter. More often than you would think however, families are happy to challenge a will applying the wording strictly if they think they can get some money (or perhaps right a perceived wrong).

You would be amazed how often families of the deceased will try interpret a will the way that suits them. If you want a clause in your will to be binding upon your family members it had better be drafter very precisely. Any ambiguity can be seized upon to bend the will to your relatives will (excuse the pun).

Legally, police reports don't mean much. A police report is hearsay, and will not be allowed. The police officer would have to answer questions based on his investigation and the facts as he knows them.

The witnesses are important (and a police oficer normally is not one). The police officer can report on distances, etc. from personal observation. But there is a reason why contact information on witnesses is given in the report.

Another point: "not guilty" is a lot easier than "not liable." For a criminal lawsuit, there must be proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil suit, it's gotta be only the preponderence of the evidence. Civil plaintiffs therefore have an advantage over criminal prosecutors.

One way or another, I hope this gets handled, with whatever ultimately happens going public.